Skip to main content

Full text of "Hillary (emails) and Bill Clinton Book Collection"

See other formats

:■ ■ 

■ . V ; : 

v. ■ . 






The Untold Story of How and Why 
Foreign Governments and Businesses 
Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich 

Peter Schweizer 





1. Dedication 

CHAPTtik 1 



The Lincoln Bedroom Goes Global 

The Transfer: Bill ’s Excellent Kazakh Adventure 

Hillary’s Reset: The Russian Uranium Deal 

CHAPTEk 4 Indian Nukes: How to Win a Medal by Changing Hillary ’s Mind 

CHAPTEk 5 The Clinton Blur (I): Bill and Hillary’s Global Nexus of Philanthropy. Power. 

and Pro fit 

CHAPTEk 6 The Clinton Blur (II): The View from Foggy Bottom 

CHAPTEk 7 Podium Economics: What Was Bill Being Paid For? 

CHAPTEk 8 Warlord Economics: The Clintons Do Africa 

CHAPTtk 9 Rain forest Riches: Hillary. Bill, and Colombian Timber and Oil Deals 

CHAPTbk io Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style: The 2010 Haitian Relief Effort 

CHAPTlk li Quid pro Quo? 

13. Acknowledgments 

14. Notes 

15. About the Author 

16. Also by Peter Schweizer 

17. Credits 

18. Copyright 

19. About the Publisher 


The Lincoln Bedroom Goes Global 

Ask Team Clinton about the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation (the formal 
name is the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, originally called the William J. Clinton 
Foundation) from foreign governments, corporations, and financiers and you typically get an 
interesting explanation: it’s a sign of love. “As president, he was beloved around the world, so it 
should come as no surprise that there has been an outpouring of financial support from around the 
world to sustain his post-presidential work.” 1 

Ask Bill about the tens of millions of dollars he has made in speaking fees around the world, paid 
for by the same cast of characters, and you will get an equally charitable explanation: it’s evidence of 
his desire to help people. By giving these highly paid speeches, Clinton says, “I try to help people 
think about what’s going on and organize their lives accordingly.” 2 

Millions of dollars as a sign of pure affection; millions more for helping people think about their 
lives. By this logic, politicians who raise millions of dollars a year must be the most beloved people 
in America — and the most charitable. 

The reality is that most of what happens in American politics is transactional. People look for 
ways to influence those in power by throwing money in their direction. Politicians are all too happy 
to vacuum up contributions from supporters and people who want access or something in return. After 
politicians leave office, they often trade on their relationships and previous positions to enrich 
themselves and their families. 

The law dictates how much politicians can collect in campaign contributions, limits their ability to 
make money on the side, and requires the disclosure of those contributors. Hopefully, politicians are 
also limited to some extent by their conscience. A sense of decency and good judgment ought to 
prevent politicians on both sides of the aisle from engaging in certain transactions — even if they think 
they can get away with it. 

But while there is ample debate about which transactions should be limited and how, there is near- 
universal agreement that the game, however muddy, should be exclusively played by Americans. For 
this reason, it has long been illegal for foreigners to contribute to US political campaigns. In 2012 
two foreign nationals challenged the constitutionality of that law. The US Supreme Court decided 9-0 
declaring the law not only constitutional, but eminently reasonable. 3 

The Clintons, however, often take money from foreign entities. And that money, donated to the 
Clinton Foundation or paid in speaking fees, comes in amounts much larger than any campaign 
contribution. Indeed, the scope and extent of these payments are without precedent in American 
politics. As a result, the Clintons have become exceedingly wealthy. 

The big question is whether taking such money constitutes a transaction. The Clintons would 
undoubtedly argue that it does not. The evidence presented in this book suggests otherwise. 

Any serious journalist or investigator will tell you that proving corruption by a political figure is 
extremely difficult. Short of someone involved coming forward to give sworn testimony, we don’t 
know what might or might not have been said in private conversations, the exact nature of a 

transaction, or why people in power make the decisions they do. This is why the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) sets up sting operations: to catch suspected malefactors in the act. 

That is also why investigators look primarily at patterns of behavior. Imagine, for example, that 
you are exploring whether a politician is doing favors for a major campaign contributor in a manner 
that might be illegal. If investigators were to find that the timing of major campaign contributions 
occurred immediately before the politician made a highly favorable decision for the donor, and that 
this pattern could be well established, such timing would certainly warrant further investigation. 

This was precisely the approach I took in my 2011 book, Throw Them All Out, concerning stock 
trades and members of Congress. Were members of Congress engaged in insider trading in the stock 
market? I looked at both their stock trades and their official activities, such as voting on certain bills. 
I discovered that politicians from both parties had curious patterns in their stock picks, often buying 
and selling at opportune times. During the 2008 financial crisis, for example, some politicians sold 
stocks or shorted the market (bet that it would go lower) shortly after receiving secret economic 
briefings from senior government officials. 

Was this proof that insider trading had taken place? No. As I pointed out in the book, we could not 
know precisely why the politicians were making these particular trades at those particular times. But 
the patterns were highly suspicious. Shortly after the release of the book and a 60 Minutes segment on 
my findings, politicians from both parties cooperated in passing the STOCK Act, which was designed 
to outlaw congressional insider trading. President Barack Obama condemned the practice during his 
2012 State of the Union Address and later signed the STOCK Act into law. (The law was 
subsequently gutted by Congress and the White House, but that’s another story.) I can proudly say that 
my findings were attacked by both Republicans and Democrats. 

In a legal sense I could not prove that insider trading had taken place. I didn’t know precisely the 
motivations at work when stocks were being traded. But the pattern and timing of those trades raised 
questions so troubling that even members of Congress could not ignore it. 

In 2013 I published a follow-up called Extortion, which argued that members of Congress from 
both parties were in the habit of “extorting” campaign contributions and other favors from businesses 
and outside groups. Money flowing into politics was not just about outside interests trying to “bribe” 
politicians; politicians were knowingly putting outside interests in a position where they had to buy 
“protection” from them. I also released to the public for the first time the “party dues” lists whereby 
politicians were required to pay a certain amount of money to their party in order to obtain seats on 
certain congressional committees. The more important the committee, the more you were expected to 
pay. I further explained how politicians from both parties were using leadership PACs to feather their 
own nests, tapping those funds to pay for things that enhanced their own lifestyles. 

Was I able to prove intent or know why politicians were doing what they were doing? Of course 
not. But as before, the timing of these transactions was highly suspicious. Once again, 60 Minutes ran 
a segment about my findings which led to legislation being introduced that would restrict how 
leadership PAC funds were used. And once again, my findings were attacked by both Republicans 
and Democrats. 

Given my previous focus on bipartisan self-dealing and corruption, why am I now focused on one 
couple? Do I simply have it in for Bill and Hillary? Am I somehow trying to derail her prospects of 
being elected president in 20 1 6? 

The answer is pretty straightforward: the global dealings of this political couple deserve bipartisan 
citizen attention as much as congressional insider trading or campaign contribution extortion did. No 
one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while 

they or a spouse continued to serve in public office. The ability of any other ex-politician, whether a 
former president, senator, or congressman, Republican or Democrat, to accumulate such large 
amounts of money in such a short period of time is unmatched. It’s not even close. 

To put an even finer point on it: I am focusing specifically on financial transactions involving 
foreign businesses, investors, and governments. Foreign interests can’t donate to political campaigns. 
But they can pay money for speeches. And they can donate to the Clinton Foundation. Are they doing 
so to buy influence? Does the timing of the payments coincide with key decisions made by US 
government officials? Are they successful in obtaining favorable outcomes? 

Using publicly available sources, including financial records, tax records, government documents, 
and more, my research team and I have uncovered a repeated pattern of financial transactions 
coinciding with official actions favorable to Clinton contributors that is troubling enough to warrant 
(in my opinion) further investigation by law enforcement officers. Just as I couldn’t prove that 
members of Congress were guilty of trading on inside information, I cannot say exactly why these 
financial transactions are taking place. But as we will see, their unprecedented scale, the often shady 
nature of the characters involved, their timing, and their frequently favorable outcomes are all, or 
ought to be, extremely troubling. 

As Hillary famously noted, the Clintons were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001. 

This statement was immediately challenged as a gross exaggeration. 4,5 Still, their means were modest 
compared to those of other politicians, such as George W. Bush, whose net worth is $20 million, or 
John Kerry, whose net worth is well over $100 million. 

Because the Clintons’ financial public disclosures are given in ranges, it’s impossible to know 
their precise net worth. The Clintons’ co nfi rmed income between 2001 and 2012 was at least $136.5 
million, according to the Washington Post. USA Today estimates Bill Clinton’s personal net worth to 
be $55 million. That’s a very big jump from “dead broke” in a very short time. It is important to 
consider the fact that payments made to Bill Clinton for speeches or consulting fees benefit wife 
Hillary and their married net worth. 

Some of this income comes from book deals. The Clintons have been paid handsomely to write 
their public memoirs. But the greater part of it by far comes from Bill’s speechmaking. According to 
financial disclosures, since leaving the White House, Bill has been paid an annual average of over $8 
million for giving speeches around the world. The fees he collects are enormous and unprecedented, 
sometimes as much as $500,000 or even $750,000 per speech. It’s hard to imagine that Clinton’s 
pearls of wisdom are worth that much to even the most worshipful audience. 

But as this book will try to show, Bill’s speechmaking does not happen in a vacuum It is part of a 
larger pattern of activity that has never before been exposed to public scrutiny. 

During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of 
large transactions (either as private citizens or government officials) with foreign governments, 
corporations, and private financiers. Some of these transactions have put millions in their own 
pockets thanks to Bill’s lucrative lecture career. Others were part of US foreign policy. Others put 
millions into their legacy project, the Clinton Foundation. As we will see, the sums involved are 
nothing short of staggering. 

What’s more, many of these exchanges have taken place at a time when these outside interests had 
matters of importance sitting on Hillary’s desk, whether in the Senate office building or on the third 

floor of the State Department. The issues seemingly connected to these large transfers are arresting in 
their sweep and seriousness: the Russian government’s acquisition of American uranium assets; 
access to vital US nuclear technology; matters related to Middle East policy; the approval of 
controversial energy projects; the overseas allocation of billions in taxpayer funds; and US human 
rights policy, to name a few. 

Of even greater concern is that the foreign players giving money to the Clintons include foreign 
governments (and controversial politicians) in countries like Russia, India, and the United Arab 
Emirates, where there are major foreign policy issues at stake. In other cases, foreign businessmen 
appear to have benefited shortly before or after private meetings with foreign officials involving one 
or both Clintons. There is nothing clearly illegal about these payments. But their source, size, and 
timing raise serious questions deserving of deeper investigation. While some particular facts or 
instances have been reported on sporadically elsewhere, the convoluted methods, shady characters, 
and cumulative pattern of behavior will be described in this book for the first time. 

Also described for the first time is the role of the Clinton Foundation at the center of an elaborate 
system for generating large donations and fees. 

In June 1999, as his second term was winding down, Bill sat down with his chief fundraiser and 
forty business leaders at La Grenouille in midtown Manhattan to outline his future vision for a 
nonprofit organization. 6 The Clinton Foundation would become the centerpiece of his post- 
presidential work. And both the Clintons were engaged. Hillary played “an important role in shaping 
both the foundation’s organization and the scope of its work,” in the words of the New York Times. As 
the foundation’s first chief of staff, Karen Tramontano, put it, “She and I would speak frequently. She 
had a lot of ideas. All the papers that went to him went to her.” She even attended foundation planning 
sessions while she served in the US Senate. 7 

The foundation’s mission appeared as much as anything to protect President Clinton’s legacy as 
well as to bolster his philanthropic work around the world. Its method of operation would be to raise 
money from donations and regrant the funds or use them to finance its own philanthropic programs, 
including initiatives involving health care, the environment, and development in the third world. 

Yet even before Clinton left office, the foundation found itself mired in controversy. The timing of 
certain contributions raised questions as to whether they were tied to official favors. On October 6, 
1999, Anhe user-Busch Companies gave the first of five payments totaling $1 million for the William 
J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum (or Clinton Library for short), which was funded in part 
by donations given through the Clinton Foundation. As the New York Times reported, less than a 
month earlier “the Clinton administration’s Federal Trade Commission dropped a bid to regulate 
beer, wine, and liquor advertising” allegedly aimed at underage drinkers. 8 

In May 1999 a bankruptcy attorney from Chicago named William A. Brandt Jr. also pledged $1 
million. At the time the Clinton Justice Department was investigating Brandt’s testimony to Congress 
to determine whether he had lied under oath concerning a Clinton fundraiser and the lobbying of 
federal officials. Three months later, in August, the Department of Justice dropped the investigation 
and determined that “prosecution is not warranted.” 9 

In 1999 Dr. Richard Machado Gonzalez and his lawyer, Miguel Lausell, were lobbying President 
Clinton to boost Puerto Rican hospital Medicare reimbursements. This would benefit, among others, 
Machado, who owned one of the eligible hospitals. Eight months prior to Clinton proposing increased 

Medicare payments, Lausell gave the Clinton Library a $1 million gift. Machado gave the foundation 
$100,000 six months after that. 

The controversies reached a fever pitch during Clinton’s final days in office, when he pardoned 
billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, an oil trader and financier who had been indicted on numerous 
charges by US prosecutors and had fled the country. Rich’s business ties included a “who’s who” of 
unsavory despots, including Fidel Castro, Muammar Qaddafi, and the Ayatollah Khomeini. (Rich had 
traded oil with the ayatollah in violation of US law while Iran held American hostages.) He owed 
$48 million in back taxes that he unlawfully tried to avoid and faced the possibility of 325 years in 
prison. As a result, he was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. On his last day in office, President Clinton 
infamously pardoned Rich, sending shockwaves through Washington. The pardon came after his ex- 
wife, Denise Rich, donated $100,000 to Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign, $450,000 to the Clinton 
Library, and $ 1 million to the Democratic Party. 

Condemnation of the whole affair was immediate and nearly universal. Maureen Dowd labeled the 
Clintons as “grifters” and the New York Times bemoaned President Clinton’s “outrageous abuse of 
the pardoning power.” 10 Former president Jimmy Carter called it “disgraceful.” 11 Even longtime 
Clinton supporters, like James Carville and Terry McAuliffe, were critical. 12 The Washington Post 
wondered if the “defining characteristic” of Bill and Hillary Clinton was that “they have no capacity 
for embarrassment.” 

This last comment expresses a view of the Clintons frequently voiced by journalists and 
establishment figures over the years. Indeed, speculating on their motives has become something of a 
Washington parlor game. In this view, either the Clintons are utterly shameless, cynically assuming 
they will survive whatever scandal comes their way, or they are so convinced of their own virtue and 
benevolence that they are able to excuse whatever they have to do in the pursuit of their noble ends, 
no matter how low or unethical. We may never know the answer to this fascinating riddle. 

Either way, the Clintons were just getting started. Once liberated from the White House, Bill hit the 
lecture circuit, collecting $105.5 million from 2001 through 2012 and raising hundreds of millions of 
dollars for the Clinton Foundation. Significantly, his biggest payments came not from sources in the 
United States but from foreign investors, businesses, and governments eager to please the former 
president — and probably hungry for access to the corridors of American power. Meanwhile, Hillary 
was quickly rising in the ranks of the US Senate, gaining influence and power, especially on matters 
concerning national security and foreign policy. When she ran for the Democratic presidential 
nomination in 2008, her power prospects rocketed. While Barack Obama’s unexpected victory in the 
Democratic primaries apparently derailed this inexorable ascent, she still ended up in an even more 
powerful position than before. 

When President-elect Obama first floated Hillary Clinton’s name for secretary of state in late 
2008, serious questions arose about the sources of funds donated to various Clinton interests. Many 
were troubled by the fact that so much of the Clintons’ newfound wealth was tied to foreign 
contributors. During her tenure as a senator, two-thirds of Bill’s enormous speaking fees had come 
from foreign sources. (As we will see, after she became secretary of state, Bill’s speaking fees and 
income from foreign speechmaking ballooned.) There was also the fact that tens of millions of dollars 
had flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the foreign governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the 
United Arab Emirates, as well as from dozens of foreign financiers. 

Would Hillary feel indebted to these foreign donors? Would these relationships influence her 
decisions on matters affecting US interests? 

Some foreign newspapers raised concerns about her “impartiality” because of the money funneled 

to her foundation from certain countries. 13 Some foreign observers viewed these donations not as acts 
of disinterested charity but as efforts to buy goodwill and influence from the incoming secretary of 
state. Donations from Indian billionaires and industrialists, wrote th q Indian Express , were about 
“jockeying for access and influence. What else explains why [donors are] so keen to donate to the 
Clinton Foundation, when discharging its own commitments in India has been, at best, very 
reluctant?” 14 The late Christopher Hitchens, writing in 2009, wondered the same: why didn’t these 
third world oligarchs “just donate the money directly [to charities in their own country] rather than 
distributing it through the offices of an outfit run by a seasoned ex-presidential influence-peddler”? 15 

The Clintons dismissed such concerns. During Hillary’s confirmation hearings before the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, members from both parties openly worried about global influence 
peddling. Then senator Richard Lugar said it was a serious problem. Lugar is no bomb thrower but as 
Time magazine put it, “a paragon of bipartisan collegiality.” 16 He also happened to be a friend of the 

Lugar’ s words were direct: 

The core of the problem is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor 
with the Secretary of State. Although neither Senator Clinton, nor President Clinton has a personal financial stake in the 
Foundation, obviously its work benefits their legacy and their public service priorities . 17 

Lugar went on: 

But the Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a 
donation. It also sets up potential perception problems with any action taken by the Secretary of State in relation to foreign givers 
or their countries . 18 

Hillary’s job was all-encompassing and touched on many vital issues with life-and-death 
outcomes. As Lugar warned, 

The nature of the Secretary of State post makes recusal from specific policy decisions almost impossible, since even localized 
U.S. foreign policy activities can ripple across countries and continents. Every new foreign donation that is accepted by the 
Foundation comes with the risk it will be connected in the global media to a proximate State Department policy or decision . 19 

Lugar’s colleagues across the aisle shared his concerns. Senator John Kerry, chairman of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed the general view. “I think it’s fair to say that Senator 
Lugar is not speaking from a partisan’s perspective, but I think he is really expressing a view of the 
Committee as a whole.” 

Politicians weren’t the only ones nervous about the Clintons’ flow of foreign funds. Mainstream 
media outlets like Time warned of “the danger that [foreign funds] might taint Hillary Clinton’s role 
as Secretary of State.” 20 

Hillary herself rejected the notion that a foreign government giving millions of dollars to her 
husband while she served as maestra of American foreign policy might present a problem. 
“Ultimately, there is no conflict between the foreign policy of the United States and the efforts of the 
Clinton Foundation seeking to reduce human suffering and increase opportunity for people in need,” 
she told the senators. 21 

But the Clintons’ attempts to downplay or dismiss the issue failed to quell concerns. 

Incoming president Obama and his transition team were nervous about the i nfl uence of foreign 
funds as well. Before announcing Hillary as his choice for secretary of state, Obama directed his 

aides to conduct detailed and extensive negotiations with the Clinton camp over the issue. Doug 
Band, a Clinton confidant and top aide at the foundation, negotiated at length with Cheryl Mills, a 
former Clinton White House attorney who represented the Obama team. (Mills simultaneously served 
on the Clinton Foundation board, and would shortly be appointed Hillary’s chief of staff at the State 
Department. Like other key Clinton retainers, she will appear several times in these pages.) 

The two sides finally hammered out a memorandum of understanding (MOU). Bruce Lindsey, a 
longtime Clinton friend who ran the foundation, inked the deal between the Clinton Foundation and 
the incoming administration so Hillary’s nomination could go forward. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s 
hard-nosed confidante, signed for the incoming president. 

The MOU required the Clinton Foundation to submit to several conditions designed to address 
widespread concerns about possible foreign influence coming through donations and speaking fees. 
For one thing, the Clintons agreed to submit all future paid speeches to the State Department ethics 
office for review. They also committed to publicly disclose on an annual basis the names of any 
major donors to the Clinton Foundation and its initiatives. Finally, the Clintons said they would seek 
preapproval from the Obama administration on direct contributions to the Clinton Foundation from 
foreign governments or government- owned businesses. 

Both Bill and Hillary were unequivocal in stating that they would be transparent about the flow of 
foreign money. In her written answers to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hillary promised 
that “the Foundation will publish annually the names of all contributors for that year.” 22 Bill went on 
CNN and said, “If she is going to be secretary of state, and I operate globally and I have people who 
contribute to these efforts globally, I think that it’s important to make it totally transparent.” Obama 
administration National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor agreed: “Going forward, all 
donors will be disclosed on an annual basis, and new donations from foreign governments will be 
scrutinized by government ethics officers.” 23 

Some Clinton loyalists found these requirements heavy handed; they believed Bill and Hillary 
were “forced to go above and beyond the bar that would have been set for anyone else.” 24 But who 
else in American politics would be so audacious as to have one spouse accept money from foreign 
governments and businesses while the other charted American foreign policy? Or would permit one 
spouse to conduct sensitive negotiations with foreign entities while in some instances the other 
collected large speaking fees from some of those same entities? 

For that very reason, the agreement was widely criticized for not going far enough. Senator Lugar 
was direct: “The only certain way to eliminate this risk going forward is for the Clinton Foundation to 
foreswear new foreign contributions when Senator Clinton becomes Secretary of State.” The 
Washington Post's editorial page agreed, pointing out that “even if Ms. Clinton is not influenced by 
gifts to her husband’s charity, the appearance of conflict is unavoidable.” 25 Th q Post warned, “The 
new administration is buying itself a heap of potential trouble with this agreement.” 26 

Still, the agreement did the trick. The commitment to disclose and seek preapproval for 
government-tied funds left the Senate, the press, and the public with the widespread impression that 
these issues had been frilly addressed. Hillary was confirmed as secretary of state by a 94-2 margin. 

But the claimed commitment to transparency was fleeting. The Clintons violated it almost 
immediately. As we will see, the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose gifts amounting to millions of 
dollars from foreign entities and businessmen who needed Hillary’s help as secretary of state to 
approve a transaction with serious national security implications. The Clinton Foundation also 
collected money from foreign government-owned businesses without getting prior Obama 

administration approval. And the pattern of taking money from businesses or individuals that owned 
entities that had matters before Hillary would continue unabated. 

Some might say it is unfair to connect Hillary’s public career as a US senator and secretary of state 
with her husband’s private commercial activities. After all, they both led active public lives and 
spent significant amounts of time apart. She seems to prefer their home in Northwest Washington, DC, 
while Bill spends much of his time in Chappaqua, New York. 

But by their own account, the two often work in tandem and are in regular communication. Hillary 
says, “[W]e have an endless conversation. We never get bored. We get deeply involved in all the 
work that we do, and we talk about it constantly .” 27 Journalists who have traveled with the Clintons 
co nfi rm this. When Andrew Jack of the Financial Times traveled with Bill in Africa for seven days, 
he noted “his frequent calls with Hillary during the trip .” 28 

Spouses have long been seen as avenues for cronyism, corruption, and influence. That is why 
federal government ethics laws require politicians to disclose not just their own financial assets, 
holdings, and income, but those of their spouses as well. Enriching a politician’s spouse or family is 
one of the most common methods of political corruption. As secretary of state, Hillary pushed for 
international anticorruption standards that addressed this very concern. 

Others might argue that this is simply a “Bill problem.” They would like to divide the Clintons into 
“good Clinton” and “bad Clinton.” Hillary is the “good” one, the devoted and tough-minded public 
servant. Bill is the “bad” one, ethically challenged, pursuing money and personal desires. One 
magazine headline explained it this way: “Hillary’s big ethical problem: Bill .” 29 

But as we will see, this is a crude caricature of their complex relationship. In a way, all that has 
really happened is that the Clintons have reversed roles. When Hillary entered the Senate, and then 
the State Department, she became the one who had real power, rather than Bill. 

How did the Clintons amass so much wealth in such a short period of time? The answer makes for 
fascinating reading. 

For one thing, the Clintons have operated at the fringes of the developed world, often appearing to 
assist in facilitating huge resource-extraction deals that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The 
era of globalization has opened up a Wild West bonanza where profits can be made on a scale not 
seen since the height of nineteenth-century colonialism. The Clintons’ most lucrative transactions 
originate not in places like Germany or Great Britain, where business and politics are kept separate 
by stringent ethical rules and procedures, but in despotic areas of the developing world where the 
rules are very different. Money also comes from foreign businessmen in Europe or Canada who have 
amassed their wealth in parts of the world where corruption and payoffs are simply a part of doing 

We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred 
contemporaneous with favorable US policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds. 

Here is how it worked: Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation 
as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by “close 
friends” or associates who happened to have business interests pending in these countries. 
Introductions were made, deals struck, and photo ops arranged before an admiring foreign press. 
Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted 
within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state. Huge donations then flowed 
into the Clinton Foundation while Bill received enormous speaking fees underwritten by the very 
businessmen who benefited from these apparent interventions. 

Of course, it is perfectly possible that in some cases Hillary did nothing at all to ensure these 

favorable outcomes. Perhaps these foreign interests made large payments to Bill simply in the hope of 
influencing Hillary. Maybe they were mistaken in thinking that multimillion-dollar payments to Bill 
and the foundation would have the desired effect. We don’t know. Either way, though, the Clintons 
ended up with the money. 

I realize how shocking these allegations may appear. Are these activities illegal? That’s not for me 
to say. I’m not a lawyer. But as someone once said, the most troubling thing about Washington is not 
what’s illegal but what isn’t. The Clintons are lawyers themselves and they know very well what 
legal lines they may not cross. By using their legal finesse, the Clintons have often skirted the 
boundaries of ethical conduct. They have been frequently censured and criticized for their conduct, 
but have usually escaped serious legal consequences. In a way, what you are about to read is similar 
to what they have always done, from Little Rock to the Lincoln Bedroom. They are just doing it now 
on a truly global scale. 

Unsavory foreigners with an interest in climbing higher up the global status chain have clearly seen 
the Clintons as a path to respectability and influence. 

Take the case of Gulnora Karimova, the eldest daughter of the dictator of Uzbekistan. In a country 
dominated by organized crime, forced labor, and torture, Gulnora is loathed by her country’s 
citizenry. As one US diplomatic cable put it, “Most Uzbeks see Karimova as a greedy, power-hungry 
individual who uses her father to crush business people or anyone else who stands in her way. . . . 
She remains the single most hated person in the country.” 30 Being the most hated person in Uzbekistan 
is saying something. Her father, who still runs the country, is widely reported to have boiled his 
political opponents to death in the 1990s. 

Karimova is also glamorous and ambitious, and for a while she sported a fashion and jewelry line 
she tried to establish in Europe and the United States. According to a “secret/noforn” cable sent from 
the US embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, to the CIA and other intelligence agencies in July 2009, she 
was “hoping that a connection with him [Bill] will allow her to establish good relations with the 
Secretary of State [Hillary].” 31 How to go about it? She started by cosponsoring a Clinton Eoundation 
fundraiser in Monaco. She posed with Bill for a photo at the event and soon NBC’s Today Show 
reported that Bill Clinton was “among her friends.” 32 

Where it all might have led we will never know, because in 2013 Karimova had a falling out with 
her dictator father. As of this writing, she is thought to be under house arrest in Uzbekistan. 

Brash Gulnora Karimova was only expressing what so many foreign oligarchs and interested 
investors already know. And the Clintons know it, too. Supporters and opponents have called the 
Clintons many things over the years, but one word you never hear is naive. 


The Transfer 

Bill s Excellent Kazakh Adventure 

On September 6, 2005, former president Bill Clinton found himself, of all places, in Almaty, 

Kazakhstan. 1 A country with broad steppes and rugged mountains, Kazakhstan was a place where 
Genghis Kha n once roamed. More recently, the comedy film Borat lampooned it as an impoverished 
country full of incompetents. In truth, however, the country sits atop a vast storehouse of minerals that 
includes an estimated $5 trillion worth of natural resources. 2 Highly prized are the country’s immense 
uranium deposits — the mineral used to fuel nuclear reactors and build nuclear bombs. 

Bill Clinton’s Kazakhstan sojourn was ostensibly an effort to help the country’s HIV/ AIDS patients 
gain access to lower-priced antiretroviral therapies. Yet according to the World Health Organization 
(WHO) and the United Nations Program on HIV/ AIDS, at the time of Clinton’s visit, only an 
estimated fifteen hundred Kazakhs needed such treatments. In 2005 the prevalence of HIV/ AIDS in 
Kazakhstan accounted for between 0.1 and 0.3 percent of its 15.4 million citizens, low compared 
with African countries like Botswana (24.1 percent) and South Africa (18.8 percent of adults). 3 

All the more curious was the fact that Clinton had agreed to public and private meetings with the 
nation’s dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who had ruled Kazakhstan as president since 1990. Having 
risen through the ranks of the Communist Party during the Soviet days, Nazarbayev dropped the 
working-class rhetoric after the collapse of the Soviet Union and reverted to a classic despot. Indeed, 
“president” was a selected title. Kazakhstan doesn’t have elections as we think of them in the West. 
Nazarbayev regularly wins reelection with more than 90 percent of the vote. (In the last election, the 
candidates running against Nazarbayev claimed they voted for him.) 4 

In short, Nazarbayev gets what he wants, one way or another. Despite a long marriage and an 
airline stewardess for a mistress, he was the father of only three daughters — no sons. Lacking a male 
heir, he arranged a relationship with the former Miss Kazakhstan Assel Issabayeva, and impregnated 
her via test tube. On April 2, 2005, she gave birth to his Sultanchik. Problem solved. 5 

According to the Huffington Post , “Nazarbayev himself is rumored to be one of the richest men in 
the world, although no one knows exactly how rich, since he is alleged to have hidden interests in a 
variety of businesses.” Kazakhstan’s five billionaires all have close ties to Nazarbayev. Two of them 
are his relatives. 6 

Nazarbayev craves acceptance from the West. But he has a nasty habit of throwing political 
opponents and journalists into jail. Torture is common. The list of Kazakh human rights violations, 
according to the US government, besides torture includes arbitrary detention; restrictions on freedom 
of speech, press, and assembly; pervasive corruption; and human trafficking. 

So why would former president Bill Clinton bestow an air of international respectability on a 
backwater billionaire dictator with a treacherous human rights record? And why would he do so on 
the eve of a national election in that country, when Clinton’s mere presence could be read as an 
endorsement of the dictator’s “candidacy”? 

It helps to look to Clinton’s traveling companion, Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra. Short, 

compact, and sporting a gray-haired Caesar haircut, Giustra is estimated to be worth several hundreds 
of millions of dollars. Bill flew on board the mining magnate’s private jet: a “luxurious MD-87, 
complete with a bedroom and shower, gold-plated bathroom fixtures, leather upholstered reclining 
seats, flat-panel TVs and original paintings on the cabin walls. The blankets are emblazoned with 
‘Giustra Air.’” It features a boardroom and sleeps eighteen comfortably. 7 

“The plane is a business tool. No more, no less,” says Giustra bluntly. And one of its useful 
functions has been doing the Clintons favors. For some years, Giustra has made his jet available to 
Bill to travel the globe delivering big-money speeches, as well as to travel to campaign events for 
Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign. As a Canadian citizen, Giustra couldn’t donate to Hillary’s 
campaign, but he could certainly offer use of his plane to Bill. He could also steer tens of millions to 
the Clintons and entities that they control. 8 

Giustra built his empire by cutting deals in some of the most dangerous parts of the world. At the 
time of his 2005 travels with Clinton, he lived in a palatial 12,000-square-foot home in western 
Vancouver. “Obsessively private,” according to Canadian media, he operated out of a thirty-first- 
floor corner office on Burrard Street, a sloping boulevard with scenic views of Vancouver’s port. 

Less a mining executive than a penny-stock speculator, Giustra made his money pumping and 
dumping mining stocks in the Canadian stock exchanges. 9 As the Globe and Mail , Canada’s most 
prestigious newspaper, put it in a generally sympathetic portrait, Giustra got rich “through a Byzantine 
system of shell companies, furtive share purchases and elaborate compensation schemes.” 10 In 
Kazakhstan he was looking to close a large deal. 

Giustra had done mining deals in sub-Saharan Africa and South America. He knew how to do 
business with autocrats. For an autocrat, the allure of doing a favor for an ex-American president, 
especially a former president with a powerful wife, likely held special value. As Giustra admitted in 
2006 to the New Yorker in a rare moment of candor, “All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton. 
He’s a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.” 11 

According to Clinton and Giustra, they first met in 2005. 12 Technically, that might be correct. But 
their business ties actually go back decades earlier. 

Both men were involved with mining entrepreneur Jean- Raymond Boulle, whose company 
Diamond Fields invested in an Arkansas diamond mine that Clinton approved when he was 
governor. 13 At the time, Diamond Fields had its eye on an Arkansas state park known to have 
diamond deposits. So Boulle went to Little Rock and hooked up with Clinton pal Jim Blair. 14 (Blair 
made headlines in 1994 as the man who helped Hillary Clinton turn $1,000 into $100,000 in futures.) 
Blair took Boulle to see Governor Clinton and pitched a diamond mine in the Crater of Diamonds 
State Park. 15 Boulle claimed the mine could become “one of the world’s largest diamond 
producers.” 16 Governor Clinton signed off on the project and helped get the property green-lighted for 
mining in 1987. Clinton pal Bruce Lindsey (who went on to become a senior White House adviser 
and now serves as chairman of the board of the Clinton Foundation) provided legal services to the 
fledgling company. For good measure, Diamond Fields set up its corporate headquarters in Hope, 
Bill Clinton’s hometown. 17 

When Bill was elected president, Boulle was an invited guest at the inauguration in Washington, 
DC. That night, as the Clintons celebrated their victory at several inaugural balls around town, 
Hillary wore a 3.5-carat diamond ring that came from one of Boulle’s mines. 

Giustra, through a variety of domestic and offshore holding companies, had more than sixty 

thousand shares of stock in Diamond Fields in the early 1990s. 18 But by 2005 the public face of the 
Clinton-Giustra relationship was all about philanthropy The two would establish something called 
the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) as a project of the Clinton Foundation. 
CGSGI is supposed to foster economic growth in the developing world. Its activities are often sited 
near “natural resource industry” projects such as mines or oilfields in which Giustra is invested. 

Access to Kazakh mining concessions is highly competitive. Large mining companies from Australia 
to Russia vie for them. Giustra’s company, UrAsia Energy, was a new player with no background in 
the uranium business and was therefore far from the logical choice for Kazatomprom, the Kazakh 
atomic energy agency. Other companies with decades of experience in the field should have been first 
in line for this lucrative deal. “Everyone was asking Kazatomprom to the dance,” said Fadi Shadid, a 
senior uranium industry stock analyst. “A second- tier junior player like UrAsia — you’d need all the 
help you could get.” 19 UrAsia Energy was a mere shell company. But with Nazarbayev’s approval, 
that was about to change. 

Giustra had his eye on three mines several hundred miles from Almaty. The deal was obscure from 
the start: the mining concessions were transferred to mysterious offshore entities including Jeffcott 
Group Ltd., which was registered in the British Virgin Islands. Giustra and others involved in the 
venture later claimed they didn’t even know who actually owned the mysterious entity. “We dealt 
with corporations and entities that had title to the assets,” said Chris Sattler, executive vice president 
of corporate development and investor relations of Uranium One (of which UrAsia Energy would 
soon become part). “In fact, we dealt with their representatives. . . . Therefore, we have no 
knowledge of the beneficiaries or shareholders behind Jeffcott.” 20 On other occasions, Frank Giustra 
claims to have known precisely whom he was dealing with in the transaction. 

Clinton’s itinerary included a lavish private feast with the Kazakh dictator, as well as a public 
press conference. 21 For the former president it was a reunion of sorts. Clinton and Nazarbayev had 
first met back in 1994, when the Kazakh autocrat came to Washington to meet the new president. 22 
The two discussed several topics and signed a Charter on Democratic Partnership, “which 
recognized Kazakhstan’s commitments to the rule of law, respect for human rights, and economic 
reform.” 23 Nazarbayev had a habit of signing documents he had no intention of honoring. Clinton and 
Nazarbayev met again in December 1 999, when they discussed a number of issues, one of which 
likely included concerns involving two mining and metal companies that were having troubles in 
Kazakhstan. A Canadian firm, World Wide Minerals, and a London-based firm, Trans-World Metals, 
had seen property confiscated by the Kazakh government. 24 

The September 2005 visit had been organized in part by Sergei Kurzin, a round-faced Russian 
nuclear physicist from Siberia who had done business in Kazakhstan before. In addition to arranging 
the meeting in Almaty, he assisted Giustra in creating UrAsia Energy. 25 

It’s unclear if Kurzin and Clinton had met before, but they would have several more meetings in the 
years that followed. And they had something else in common: fugitive financier Marc Rich. Recall 
that in January 2001, on his last day in office, Clinton had issued a presidential pardon for Rich. 
Kurzin had previously worked for Rich traveling around Russia in search of suitable investment 
opportunities. 26 

Kurzin, in a 2008 interview with New York Times reporters Jo Becker and Don Van Natta, said 

about the visit, “timing was everything.” 27 After the Times piece ran, Kurzin reported getting an angry 
phone call from Giustra. The secretive Canadian “yelled like hell at me over the phone after he saw 
the piece,” Kurzin said later. “He was furious that I talked to a journalist.” 28 

What transpired at dinner with Clinton, Nazarbayev, and Giustra depends on whom you ask. It was 
by all accounts a lavish affair, with upward of seventy- five guests. 

Bill maintained that the entire visit was about dealing with HIV/ AIDS in Kazakhstan. Giustra 
insisted that the mining deal he wanted to secure did not involve Nazarbayev or the Kazakh 
government. As he put it, “The mining agreements I reached in Kazakhstan were concluded after 
lengthy negotiations with private companies — not the Kazakhstan government.” 29 Bill has gone even 
further, claiming that “formal endorsement from the Kazakh government was not required to acquire 
the assets.” 30 He went on to make a technical legal argument: “Kazatomprom was not a signatory to 
either of the memorandums of understanding signed by Mr. Giustra’ s company.” 31 

But these were, at best, elaborate evasions. Corporate executives for the uranium company later 
admitted to journalists and US diplomats that Kazakh officials absolutely needed to sign off on the 
deal. JeanNortier, CEO of the company that would eventually control the assets, said, “When you do 
a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval. UrAsia got the approval, and when 
UrAsia merged with Uranium One, that approval was given again.” 32 

Leaked State Department cables from the US ambassador in Kazakhstan further refute Bill 
Clinton’s claim. Giustra acquired the assets in Kazakhstan through his shell company UrAsia Energy 
and then transferred those assets through a merger with a company called Uranium One. 33 According 
to a 2009 US diplomatic cable revealed by WikiLeaks, Paul Lewis Clarke, senior vice president of 
Uranium One, claimed that Uranium One’s UrAsia acquisitions “were approved by many of the same 
people still in power,” including the then prime minister Danial Akhmetov (who later became 
minister of defense), and “Kazatomprom president [Vladimir] Shkolnik, then the Minister of Energy 
and Mineral Resources.” 34 Any asset transfer of uranium rights needed to be approved by Kazakh 
officials. 35 

A key Kazakh official involved in the deal was Mukhtar Dzhakishev, the president of 
Kazatomprom, the government agency that runs Kazakhstan’s uranium and nuclear energy industry. A 
technocrat with pro-Western sympathies, Dzhakishev was eager to do business with the United States 
and would later visit Clinton in 2007 at his home in New York. According to Dzhakishev, the 
uranium deal came up in discussions that night at the banquet. 36 Clinton and Giustra dispute this. 

But more than that, suggestions have been made that Dzhakishev and other Kazakh officials had 
already been under pressure for months to close the deal and grant the lucrative uranium concessions 
to Giustra. 37 Lor reasons that remain unclear, approval was being held up on the Kazakh end. Giustra 
was understandably anxious and may have asked Bill to intervene. 

In a 2009 video of a statement to authorities on an unrelated matter, Dzhakishev claimed that then 
senator Hillary Clinton pressured Kazakh officials to secure the deal for the Canadians. According to 
Dzhakishev, Kazakh prime minister Karim Massimov “was in America and needed to meet with 
Hillary Clinton but this meeting was cancelled. And they said that those investors connected with the 
Clintons who were working in Kazakhstan have problems. Until Kazakhstan solved those problems, 
there would be no meeting, and all manner of measures would be taken.” Massimov returned to his 
country and called Dzhakishev and told him to work it out. 38 Dzhakishev then claims he was 
contacted by Tim Phillips, an adviser to Bill. According to Dzhakishev, Phillips told him that there 

would be no further meetings with Hillary until Kazakh officials approved Giustra’s uranium deal. 39 

Dzhakishev was certainly in a position to know. He played a central role in the Giustra uranium 
deal. He was among the first Giustra met in Kazakhstan to discuss it. Some time later he met with Bill 
Clinton at his home in Chappaqua, New York, to discuss the broader uranium market in Kazakhstan. 40 

The alleged threat to withhold American aid would not have been perceived as an idle one. The 
Kazakhs received large sums of money from the US government as part of a post-Cold War 
nonproliferation program (In 2011, for example, they received $110 million for “combatting 
weapons of mass destruction.”) At that time, Hillary sat on the powerful Senate Armed Services 
Committee. More specifically, she sat on the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. 
Hillary’s subcommittee had responsibility for oversight of nonproliferation programs. 41 

Dzhakishev also claimed that Phillips “began to scream” at him that it was important to get the deal 
done for “Democrats” involved in it. 42 Dzhakishev says he took Phillips to see Kazakh officials, 
including assistant to the president Karim Massimov, who later became prime minister. When 
Phillips was asked by the Washington Post about Dzhakishev’s account, he didn’t respond. He has, 
however, changed his online resume and has removed any references to having been a Clinton 
Foundation fundraiser. 43 

Meanwhile, Bill gave Nazarbayev the international credibility he craved. Standing before the 
gathered media in front of a large gold-inlaid national seal of Kazakhstan, Bill Clinton took the 
podium with a grinning Nazarbayev at his side. 44 Bill talked about his global AIDS work before 
praising Nazarbayev for “opening up the social and political life of your country.” Clinton’s glowing 
assessment was not shared by anyone in the human rights community. Indeed, Robert Herman, who 
worked for the Clinton State Department in the 1990s and later joined the nonprofit Freedom House, 
called the statement “patently absurd.” 45 Certainly the US State Department would not agree with 
Clinton’s fawning praise. For years, it had categorically stated that Kazakhstan had “failed to 
significantly improve its human rights record.” 46 

As the international media recorded his words, Bill also came out publicly in support of 
Nazarbayev’s bid to have his country head the prestigious Organization for Security and Cooperation 
in Europe (OSCE). “I think it’s time for that to happen, it’s an important step, and I’m glad you’re 
willing to undertake it,” he said. Nazarbayev quickly issued a press release proudly claiming support 
from Clinton. The ex-president neither refuted nor challenged Nazarbayev’s public relations victory 

Clinton’s endorsement was remarkably audacious. The OSCE was primarily a human rights 
organization, formed as a result of the 1975 Helsinki Accords. The international body held little 
power, but it was an honor Nazarbayev sought. Putting Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan at the helm of the 
OSCE was like putting Iran in charge of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It made no sense. 
Still, it would be a prestigious appointment for the dictator. 

Hillary was at the time a legislative branch commissioner for the Commission on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, one of only nine US senators on the panel. In 2004 Hillary had cosigned a 
letter to the State Department stating that Kazakhstan’s bid to head up the OSCE “would not be 
acceptable” because of widespread corruption and human rights problems. In July 2008 when the 
commission held hearings titled “Promises to Keep: Kazakhstan’s 2010 OSCE Chairmanship,” 
Senator Ben Cardin, Democrat of Maryland and the cochair of the commission, said Kazakhstan’s 
“record on human rights and democratization does indeed raise concerns. The State Department’s 
yearly reports, as well as those by numerous human rights groups inside and outside of Kazakhstan, 

lay out in detail the problem areas.” 47 

According to the official transcript, Hillary didn’t show up for the hearings. 

Clinton and Giustra left Kazakhstan the day after the banquet. Within forty-eight hours, Giustra’s 
company UrAsia signed two memoranda of understanding outlining the transfer of uranium mining 
assets, which Kazakh authorities later approved: buying a 30 percent stake in the Kharassan uranium 
project and 70 percent in another project — the Betpak-Dala joint venture. 48 The deal stunned longtime 
mining observers. Choosing UrAsia to buy into those mines was a “mystery” said Gene Clark, the 
chief executive of Trade Tech , an industry newsletter. “UrAsia was able to jump-start the whole 
process somehow,” he said. The company was now a “major uranium producer when it didn’t even 
exist before.” 49 

In the months that followed, Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $3 1.3 million. 50 It was the first of 
several large donations he would make as he went on to secure other lucrative natural resources deals 
in developing countries around the world. We will see him again in other chapters. 

As mentioned earlier, at the time of Clinton’s visit, Kazakhstan was on the verge of a national 
election. Days after Clinton departed, the opposition party’s campaign headquarters were ravaged by 
fire in an arson attack. On October 12 heavily armed police temporarily arrested the opposition 
party’s leader. The OSCE said the election “was marred by an ‘atmosphere of intimidation’ and 
‘ballot-box stuffing.’” 51 

In December 2005 Nazarbayev won reelection with more than 90 percent of the vote. Bill sent him 
a note of congratulations. “Recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the 
most important rewards in life,” he wrote. “At the start of your new term as president, I would like to 
express confidence that you will continue to live up to the expectations of your people.” 52 The Kazakh 
dictator promptly released Clinton’s congratulatory note to the public. 

With the Kazakh concession in hand, UrAsia Energy Ltd. significantly expanded its assets. UrAsia 
quickly went about directing shares of the company’s stock to friends in Canada. Giustra took 3 
million shares. He gave half a million more to Robert Cross, a former brokerage colleague, whom he 
also placed on the board. According to the Globe and Mail , his friend and fellow investment 
dealmaker, IanTelfer, received 2.2 million shares of his own. 53 

Telfer, like Giustra, had been kicking around in the mining business for decades, involved in 
several high-profile penny-stock mining deals. 54 “I’m more of an opportunist than a visionary,” he 
admitted. 55 But this deal was special. And he would provide the Clinton Foundation with funds of his 

With the shares doled out, UrAsia went public and was “among the largest [offerings] on record” 
to be brokered on Canada’s Venture Exchange. 56 Canadian firms BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., Canaccord 
Adams, and GMP Securities Ltd. handled the placement of the shares, and became supporters of the 
Clinton Foundation as well, as we will see. 57 

Then phase two began. In February 2007 UrAsia Energy announced that it would merge with 
Uranium One, a uranium company based out of South Africa and Canada. 58 

Like all transactions involving uranium in Kazakhstan, the merger required approval by the Kazakh 
government. That same month, Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, went to Chappaqua for a 
private meeting with Bill Clinton. 59 Frank Giustra allegedly arranged the meeting. 60 According to 

Dzhakishev, they discussed uranium markets and the future of nuclear power. Just as Giustra needed 
Kazakh government approval, the Kazakhs might need US government approval for their aspirations 
to purchase a stake in Westinghouse, a major US manufacturer of nuclear power plant components. 61 

Yet pressure was mounting in Washington about Nazarbayev’s human rights record and 
Kazakhstan’s fitness to head an international human rights body like the OSCE. Senator Joe Biden, 
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, fired off a letter on March 13, 2007, to 
President Nazarbayev, making it clear he wanted Kazakhstan to clean up its act or he would not 
support their bid. “Unless visible progress is attained quickly, I will not be able to support 
Kazakhstan in its quest to assume chairmanship of the OSCE.” 62 

The Clintons, however, took a different tack. Hillary, who had expressed concerns about 
Kazakhstan heading up the OSCE prior to the deal, now was strangely silent. 63 Bill was emboldened: 
he invited Nazarbayev to attend the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) as his guest. The Kazakh dictator 
was happy to make the trip, and on September 25, 2007, he was a featured attendee at an exclusive 
CGI meeting in New York. 64 

Two months later Nazarbayev was awarded the OSCE chair, a post he took in 20 10. 65 

Meanwhile, in February 2007 shareholders approved the merger between Ur Asia and Uranium 
One. 66 Although Giustra tried to characterize the transaction as a Uranium One takeover of his 
company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., it was actually a reverse merger. Giustra, his friends, and other 
shareholders wound up controlling 60 percent of the new company. 67 And in the months that 
followed, they began acquiring uranium assets in the United States itself. 68 Within the next year, they 
began negotiations with the Russian State Nuclear Agency, which, in 2009, bought a stake in the 
company, as described in the next chapter. 69 

Following the lucrative merger, many of the deal’s largest shareholders wrote multimillion-dollar 
checks to the Clinton Foundation and its project, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. In 
addition to his $31.3 million donation, Giustra announced a multiyear commitment to donate $100 
million, and half of his future profits, to the Clinton Foundation. 70 Giustra’s commitments made the 
Canadian mining investor one of the largest individual contributors to the Clinton Foundation, rivaling 
those far wealthier than himself, like Bill Gates, who has given more than $25 million to the Clinton 
Foundation. 71 

As we will see, Bill Clinton would show up at critical times in other developing countries where 
Giustra had business. As Canada’s Globe and Mail put it, “it just so happens that Bill Clinton keeps 
popping up in places where Giustra is buying resource assets.” 72 

The collective commitments and donations from investors who profited from the deal would 
ultimately exceed $145 million. 73 (The Clinton Foundation only reports ranges, not exact amounts.) 
These investors include the following business associates of Giustra: 

• Frank Holmes, another major shareholder in the deal, wrote a check to the Clinton 
Foundation for between $250,000 and $500,000. 74 Holmes also lists himself as an 
adviser to the Clinton Foundation. 

• Neil Woodyer, Giustra’s colleague who founded Endeavour Financial, pledged 
$500,000 and committed to providing “ongoing financial support.” 75 

• Robert Disbrow, a broker at Haywood Securities, which provided $58 million in 
capital to float shares of UrAsia’s private placement, sent between $1 million and $5 
million to the Clinton Foundation a few months later. 76 

• Paul Reynolds, an executive at Canaccord Capital, Inc., donated in the same range, 
between $1 million and $5 million. 77 The UrAsia deal was the largest in Canaccord’s 

• GMP Securities Ltd., another large shareholder in UrAsia Energy, committed to 
donating a portion of its profits to the CGSGI. GMP made great money on the private 
placement of shares and as an underwriter on UrAsia Energy deals. 78 

• Robert Cross, who was a major shareholder and serves as director of UrAsia 
Energy, committed a portion of his future income to the Clinton Foundation. 79 

• Egizio Bianchini, the Capital Markets vice chair and Global cohead of BMO’s 
Global Metals and Mining group, had also been an underwriter on the mining deals. 80 
BMO paid $600,000 for two tables at the CGSGI’ s March 2008 benefit. 81 

• Sergei Kurzin, a Russian dealmaker involved in the Kazakhstan uranium deal and a 
shareholder in UrAsia Energy, also made the CGSGI a $1 million pledge. 82 

• Ian Telfer, the chairman of UrAsia Energy, who would become the new chairman of 
Uranium One, committed $3 million. 83 

Bill Clinton hailed the windfall as a selfless philanthropic gesture that would support economic 
growth and health care in the developing world. “I’m proud of the coalition in the natural resources 
industry that has come together,” he said. 84 A group of Canadian mining investors just happened to 
become conspicuously large contributors in the Clinton Foundation over a very short period of time. 

Giustra went even further in bringing in funds for the foundation. In 2006, he hosted a birthday 
party/fundraiser for Bill Clinton at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel in Toronto that featured an 
impressive guest list. The event was headlined by Kevin Spacey and included Billy Crystal and Bon 
Jovi. 85 In March 2008 there was another superstar fundraising gala including Tom Cruise and Robin 
Williams in Toronto. 86 In Vancouver on October 17, 2008, Giustra and Clinton addressed the British 
Columbia Business Council on corporate social responsibility. 87 

Any actions the Clintons may have taken to support Canadian Giustra in the uranium deals could 
not be justified on the grounds that they were creating jobs for Americans or helping American 
companies be more competitive overseas, the explanation politicians often give to justify doing 
favors for companies or donors. 

But the international scope of the deals would expand beyond Kazakhstan, Canada, Washington, 
and Chappaqua to include some of the most powerful government officials in Russia. The flow of 
money would only increase. 


Hillary ’s Reset 

The Russian Uranium Deal 

P erhaps Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin had gotten off to a rough start. When she was running for 
the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Hillary had talked tough about the Russian president. 
Contradicting President George W. Bush’s oft-quoted statement that he “was able to get a sense of 
[Putin’s] soul,” Hillary had pointedly countered that Putin “doesn’t have a soul.” When asked about 
the comment, Putin shot back, “At a minimum, a head of state should have a head.” 

But when Hillary was confirmed as secretary of state in January 2009, dealing with Vladimir Putin 
would become a major part of her job. And the uranium deal in Kazakhstan, whose shareholders were 
sending in tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and were also providing 
speechmaking opportunities for Bill, would set the stage to bring Putin into the cast of characters. 

The uranium deal that was sealed in 2005 during Bill Clinton’s visit to Kazakhstan and then 
fortified by the 2007 Kazakh- approved merger would soon morph into a third transaction intersecting 
with some of Hillary’s most consequential and difficult national security decisions as secretary of 
state. And as we will see, there is no evidence that she disclosed to US government ethics officials, 
the White House, or her cabinet colleagues the apparent conflicts of interest at play as she steered US 
nuclear policy. 

In the final years of the Bush administration, relations with Moscow had cooled. The Russian 
incursion into neighboring Georgia, Bush’s plans to erect a missile-defense shield, and Russian 
pressures on Ukraine had heightened tensions between the two nuclear powers. 1 What President 
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had in mind was a “reset.” At Foggy Bottom, Hillary offered the 
Kremlin a chance to clean the slate and begin anew. 2 

Moscow was all in favor of a reset and viewed it as an opportunity to develop more trade and 
investment opportunities with the West. 3 And in spite of her pointed comments about Putin’s soul, 
Hillary’s appointment as secretary of state was generally praised in Moscow. Authorities saw her as 
offering a “balanced view of US relations with the Russian Federation.” 4 She was “by far not the 
worst” outcome for Moscow, said one official, noting that there were advisers around Obama who 
were “very critical of our country.” 5 Not a ringing endorsement perhaps, but Hillary was someone the 
Russians believed they could work with. 

At the heart of the reset was what Newsweek called “a bevy of potential business deals.” 6 These 
included deals involving oil and natural gas, which are the backbone of the Russian economy. 7 But 
not far behind were Kremlin ambitions to expand its share of the world nuclear market. Uranium, 
civilian nuclear power plants, and the technical services that supported them were considered a huge 
growth industry for Moscow. 8 In 2006 the Kremlin had approved plans “to spend $10 billion to 
increase Russia’s annual uranium production by 600 percent.” 9 Putin considered the nuclear energy 
sector “a priority branch for the country, which makes Russia a great power.” 10 Russia not only 
wanted to build nuclear plants around the world, it also wanted to control a large chunk of the global 
uranium market. 1 1 

But an important side note to the Russian reset was how it involved a collection of foreign 
investors who had poured vast sums of money into the Clinton Foundation and who continued to 
sponsor lucrative speeches for Bill. Those investors stood to gain enormously from the decisions 
Hillary made as secretary of state. 

The Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency (Rosatom) handles all things nuclear in Russia. Unlike 
the US Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rosatom is not just deeply 
imbedded with civilian nuclear power but actually controls the Russian nuclear arsenal. 12 

Longtime Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko is a tall, lanky technocrat who served in the Komsomol, 
the Soviet Youth League, during the Soviet era. He went on to become energy minister and then prime 
minister of Russia while Bill Clinton was president of the United States. (Indeed, when Russian 
president Boris Yeltsin made Kiriyenko prime minister in 1998, it brought “instant endorsements” 
from the Clinton administration.) 13 He and his agency operate in a special way in Russia, without any 
independent supervision from the Russian parliament. Rosatom “is subject only to the decision- 
making of the Kremlin,” as one nuclear scholar at UC Berkeley puts it. “Unlike the oil and gas 
industries, the nuclear sector is under the direct supervision of the state.” 14 

Rosatom not only built the controversial Bushehr nuclear reactors in Iran, it also supplies them 
with uranium 15 Rosatom also operates in North Korea, Venezuela, and Myanmar. 16 As the agency 
makes clear in its annual report, it places a primacy on protecting information “constituting state 

During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton and senior aides received numerous 
diplomatic cables discussing Moscow’s nuclear ambitions. In October 2009, for example, she 
received a cable exposing Rosatom’s plan to leverage Ukraine into a long-range supply contract with 
the Russian state nuclear fuel company, and its efforts to create “zones of pressure” on Eastern 
European governments. 17 

In December 2009 the US ambassador to Kazakhstan sent a classified cable to Washington laying 
out Russian efforts to exert control over Kazakh uranium markets. 18 The cable noted that Rosatom 
sought to control this market as part of a broader initiative to reestablish itself as a world power. The 
memo also stated that Russian military intelligence, the GRU, was involved in these nuclear 
ambitions. 19 

Even before that cable was sent, there were signs of Russian moves on the uranium market. In June 
2009 Rosatom bought a stake in Uranium One. It was not a controlling stake, only 17 percent, but the 
Russians were just getting started. 20 

Uranium One was an inviting target. Production was booming, jumping from 2 million pounds of 
uranium in 2007 to 7.4 million in 2010. But Uranium One was also aggressively buying uranium 
assets in the United States. By 2010 the Canadian company had “61 ongoing or planned projects on 
some 293,000 acres in Wyoming.” 21 The firm also owned ten thousand acres of uranium claims in 
Utah, as well as holdings in Texas and South Dakota. 22 In sum, Uranium One was projected to control 
up to half of US uranium output by 20 1 5. 

In December 2009 Rosatom chief Kiriyenko appeared before the Presidium, a selection of Russian 
government officials. He laid out an aggressive plan to acquire uranium assets outside of Russia. “An 
opportunity has opened up to buy foreign assets that are profitable and, for now, not very expensive,” 
he said. “With this program of buying uranium deposits, we can guarantee this to any customers of 
ours.” Then prime minister Putin announced at the meeting that the Russian government would 
allocate the money for the transactions to Rosatom’s equity capital. 23 

The Kremlin’s move came at a sensitive time. Hillary Clinton was directing negotiations for the 
123 Agreement with the Russian government concerning civilian nuclear energy. The 123 Agreement 
is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty whose name derives from the fact that it falls under Section 123 of 
the US Atomic Energy Act. It requires that the United States have a 123 Agreement negotiated and in 
place to make nuclear cooperation possible with foreign countries. In short, as the US State 
Department put it, the 123 Agreement with Russia would “support commercial interests by allowing 
U.S. and Russian firms to team up more easily in joint ventures.” 

The pact had previously been negotiated by the Bush administration, but when Russian forces went 
into Georgia in 2008, the administration withdrew a request that Congress approve it. The Obama- 
Clinton reset meant that the agreement was back on and (along with input from the US Department of 
Energy) that Hillary was in charge. Congress would eventually approve the 123 Agreement in January 
2011 . 

In March 2010 Hillary was in Moscow for a meeting with Putin. Putin had set in motion the 
purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One by Rosatom only a few months earlier. During a 
meeting on March 19, Hillary and Putin discussed a wide variety of issues related to trade. He 
expressed displeasure with US trade policy, presumably because Russian companies were affected 
by US sanctions. Whether the Uranium One deal was discussed is not known. 

The primary purpose of Hillary’s trip was to increase pressure on Iran. Instead, Putin promised 
Moscow’s assistance with the completion of a civil nuclear power station by the summer. Hillary 
blasted the move, saying it “would be premature to go forward with any project at this time, because 
we want to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians.” 24 

As part of its reset with Moscow, the Obama administration wanted to make progress on the New 
START nuclear talks and sought commercial opportunities in areas like civilian nuclear power. On 
that front, Hillary was optimistic. “If we continue to work together, we can move beyond the 
problems to greater opportunities.” 

In May 2010 the Obama administration submitted the proposed text of the US-Russian Civilian 
Nuclear Cooperation Agreement to Congress. Weeks later, Rosatom announced it was seeking to buy 
majority control (52 percent) of Uranium One. To some observers in the uranium market, it all made 
sense. “It was no accident that Rosatom’s choice fell to Uranium One,” wrote one paper, given the 
uranium assets it held. 25 

Several multimillion-dollar Clinton Foundation donors were at the center of the deal. As we saw 
in the previous chapter, one of these, Ian Telfer, was chairman of Uranium One. A longtime mining 
investor and associate of Frank Giustra, Telfer made his fortune as a gold investor and has served as 
the chairman of the World Gold Council. 

The Clinton Foundation also failed to disclose major contributions from entities controlled by 
those involved in the Uranium One deal. Thus, beginning in 2009, the company’s chairman, Telfer, 
quietly started tunneling what would become $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation through a 
Canadian entity he controlled called the Fernwood Foundation. 26 According to records released by 
the Clinton Foundation, Telfer had personally contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton 
Foundation in 2007. But according to Canadian tax records, Telfer’s Fernwood Foundation donated 
more than $2 million to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state. The Clinton 
Foundation’s public disclosures don’t list Fernwood as a donor. 27 

In 2009 Fernwood contributed $1 million to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative 
(CGSCI). 28 In 2010 its donation was $250,000. In 2011 it gave another $600,000 and in 2012 the 

amount was $500, 000. 29 According to Canadian tax records, nearly all of the funds CGSCI collects 
are transferred directly to the Clinton Foundation in New York. 30 In other words, it operates as a 

The fact that these donations are not listed in Clinton Foundation public disclosures violates the 
Clinton Foundation’s memorandum of understanding with the Obama White House described in 
chapter 1, and contradicts Hillary’s correspondence with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It 
also raises questions about what other undisclosed multimillion-dollar donations from foreign entities 
could have been channeled to the Clinton Foundation. 

The Russian uranium deal involved other major Clinton Foundation donors. Two men listed as 
“financial advisors” for Uranium One and the Russia deal, Robert Disbrow and Paul Reynolds, were 
also multimillion-dollar contributors. 31 Another important shareholder in Uranium One was US 
Global Investor Funds, whose CEO was Frank Holmes. 32 Holmes was not only a major contributor to 
the foundation, he was also the chairman of Giustra’s Endeavour Mining Capital Corp. Holmes 
describes himself as “an advisor to the William J. Clinton Foundation on sustainable development in 
countries with resource-based economies.” 33 The managing director for global affairs at Endeavour 
Financial during this deal was Eric Nonacs, who simultaneously served as “senior advisor” to the 
Clinton Foundation. Nonacs, before taking the job, had been a foreign policy adviser to Bill during 
his post-presidential years. 34 

As part of the merger with Uranium One, key shareholders, including Telfer and Giustra, were 
required to hold their shares for at least six months. 35 (Dzhakishev believes that Giustra made $300 
million in the deal.) 36 Giustra’s firm, Endeavour Financial, continued to act as a financial adviser to 
Uranium One. In July 2008, for example, they arranged credit for the firm as part of a deal involving 
several Canadian investment banks. 37 In early 2008, according to Rosatom executive Vadim Zhivov, 
negotiations had already begun between Rosatom and Uranium One to buy a stake in the company. 38 

Was Giustra an investor in Uranium One via US Global Investor Funds? He did not return repeated 
calls asking for comment. It is unclear whether by 2010 Giustra was still directly involved in the 
deal, as he often conducts deals through shell companies. 39 

For shareholders of Uranium One, the Russian government acquisition would mean huge payouts. 
In addition to giving every shareholder a special one-dollar-per-share dividend, Moscow had big 
plans for Uranium One. 40 According to corporate records, Telfer alone had shares and options 
amounting to more than 1 .6 million shares. 41 

“We would like just to use Uranium One as the global platform for future growth and all the future 
acquisitions and all M&A activity,” said Zhivov, who directed the transaction for Rosatom. 42 
Moscow wanted Uranium One Inc. “to be transformed into a global growth platform.” 43 This had to 
sound lucrative to Canadian investors, though Zhivov admitted there was a “hard road ahead” to 
prove that “a Russian state-owned company can . . . play by the rules of the modern developed 
world.” 44 

Russia wanted the deal for commercial and strategic reasons. The Canadian investors wanted the 
deal because it stood to make them richer. But politics in the United States would prove critical. 
Because uranium is a strategic industry, the Russian purchase of a Canadian company holding 
massive US assets required US government approval. Playing a central role in whether approval was 
granted was none other than Hillary Clinton. 

When the Uranium One deal was announced in June 2010, news of the bid “panicked some 

shareholders and alarmed industry observers worried that the Vancouver-based company might end 
up serving the Kremlin’s strategic interests,” as one Canadian newspaper put it. 45 

The Kremlin went into full public relations mode. It dispatched Russian ambassador to the United 
States Sergey Kislyak to meet with mining executives in Colorado to soothe concerns about the deal. 
“Do you mind some investment? It is a normal commercial operation — not something that is operating 
on any political guidance,” he said in an interview. “It doesn’t matter whether it is uranium or steel or 
oil or gas,” Kislyak said. “What is important is that the positive ties between our two countries seem 
to be getting more and more expanded. Politically, that is very important.” 46 

Kislyak’s distinction between business and politics is highly misleading: the funds for the Uranium 
One acquisition came from Putin directly and were approved by the Russian Presidium. And of 
course Russia has a history of using natural gas and energy exports to neighboring countries as a 
political tool. 47 

Four senior congressmen — Peter King of the Homeland Security Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 
of Foreign Affairs, Spencer Bachus of Financial Services, and Howard McKeon of Armed Services 
— voiced grave concerns about the deal. They were troubled by Rosatom’s “activities — and the 
context within which it operates in Russia — [which] should raise very serious concerns for United 
States national security interests.” The fact that Rosatom had helped Iran in building the Bushehr 
nuclear power plant “should raise red flags. . . . Although Uranium One USA officials are reportedly 
skeptical that the transaction would result in the transfer of any mined uranium to Iran, we remain 
concerned that Iran could receive uranium supplies through direct or secondary proliferation,” they 
wrote. “We believe the take-over of essential US nuclear resources by a government- owned Russian 
agency . . . would not advance the national security interests of the United States.” 48 

Wyoming senator John Barrasso also wrote a letter to the Obama administration raising concerns 
about Russian control of uranium assets in his state, citing Russia’s “disturbing record of supporting 
nuclear programs in countries that are openly hostile to the United States, specifically Iran and 
Venezuela.” 49 

In short, a bipartisan group of congressmen felt that Russia could not be trusted to allocate US 
uranium in keeping with US nuclear interests. Then congressman Ed Markey pushed a bill in the 
House with Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, “expressing disfavor of the Congress regarding the 
proposed agreement for cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation.” 50 
Markey said, “Russia continues to train Iranian nuclear physicists, supply sensitive nuclear 
technology to Iran. . . . Does Russia want cooperation with the United States, or with Iran and Syria? 
Because it can’t have both.” 51 

In light of the obvious national security concerns, Uranium One and Rosatom officials offered 
concessions. Uranium One, for example, did not have an export license from the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) allowing it to ship uranium outside of the United States. Supporters of the deal 
argued, therefore, that no one should fear that American uranium might end up in, say, Iranian 
reactors. 52 But in correspondence with the NRC, Uranium One executives did not rule out trying to 
obtain an export license in the future. They could only say that “Uranium One does not intend today 
(and does not envision in the foreseeable future) any export of U308 from the United States derived 
from the Uranium One U.S. Facilities.” 53 

Despite the glaring concerns, the Russian majority control purchase of Uranium One was approved 
by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is a small and 
somewhat secretive executive branch task force created in 1975 to evaluate any investment 

transactions that might have a direct effect on American national security. Besides the secretary of 
state, CFIUS includes cabinet officials such as the secretary of defense, the secretary of homeland 
security, and the treasury secretary CFIUS wields enormous power to stop or limit investment deals. 
Ironically, Uranium One officials, after CFIUS approved the deal, did mention global markets as an 
important reason why the deal made sense. “Donna Wichers, Uranium One Senior Vice President, 
said her company is pushing for uranium mines in Wyoming with an eye toward growing markets both 
in the United States and abroad as countries plan for new nuclear power reactors. ‘We’ve got China 
— they’re looking at opening 500 nuclear power plants in the next 40 years; India — several hundred. . 
. . So you can see worldwide there is a huge demand for nuclear power.’” 54 

There were all sorts of warning signs about Russia’s push into the uranium market. For example, the 
US International Trade Commission was in the midst of a large investigation into allegations dating as 
far back as 1991 that Russia was dumping uranium on US markets to damage the American uranium 
industry. 55 In early 2010 Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, appeared before 
a congressional committee and warned about the perils of doing business with state-owned entities in 
Russia, stating that “criminally linked oligarchs will enhance the ability of state or state-allied actors 
to undermine competition in gas, oil, aluminum and precious metal markets.” He didn’t name specific 
Russian entities involved, but referred to the problem as “a growing nexus in Russian and Eurasian 
states among governments, organized crime, intelligence services and big business figures.” He 
indicated that the United States needed to address the Russian instances of “bribery, fraud, violence 
and corrupt alliances with state actors to gain the upper hand against legitimate businesses.” 56 

In the midst of this complex and controversial transaction, which would require US cabinet-level 
approval, a small Canadian investment company named Salida Capital became intimately involved 
with the Clinton Foundation. 

According to Canadian tax records, Salida Capital received in 2010 an anonymous donation of 
$3.3 million into their charitable foundation (Salida Capital Foundation), which allowed the tiny firm 
to make the dramatic announcement that it would contribute millions to the Clinton Foundation. 57 In 
2010 it donated $780,220 to the Clinton Foundation. This amounted to about 90 percent of all 
Salida’s charitable giving that year. It was part of a multimillion-dollar commitment that would send 
more than $2.6 million to the Clintons between 2010 and 2012. 58 

Salida Capital also cosponsored a speech by Bill Clinton on May 21, 2010, in Calgary, Canada. 
While the speech was publicly listed by the Clintons as an event for “The Power Within,” a Canadian 
motivational-speaking organization, according to State Department documents filed by Bill Clinton’s 
office, sponsors for the event included Salida Capital. 

Salida Capital invests in natural resource companies, including several in the Russian-dominated 
portions of Ukraine. In 2010, when Salida moved aggressively into the Ukrainian market, their chief 
business partner in the country happened to be the personal adviser to Energy Minister Yuri Boyko, 
who helped create the trading company Vladimir Putin used to control the Ukrainian natural gas trade. 
Boyko was described in a confidential State Department cable as being “very close to Russia” and as 
the “point of contact for the Kremlin” on energy dealings in the country. 59 

In 2011 a company named Salida Capital would be identified in a Rosatom annual report as a 
wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian state nuclear agency. 60 Is it the same firm? There is 

compelling evidence that it is, but we cannot say for sure. 61 

I contacted Salida Capital in Toronto on three occasions and provided it with the opportunity to 
deny that it is connected to the Salida Capital listed as a subsidiary of Rosatom. It has refused 

The timing of events raises questions. If it were the same firm, an entity owned and controlled by 
Rosatom fiinneled millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation at the very time Hillary would have 
been involved in deciding whether to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One. 62 

But the Clintons’ fortune didn’t end there. In June, shortly after the Rosatom deal was announced, 
Bill was in Moscow for a particularly well-compensated speech. He was paid $500,000 to deliver 
remarks at an event organized by a firm called Renaissance Capital (RenCap). 63 Bill had not given a 
speech in Russia in over five years and then it had been for a British firm, Adam Smith International. 
His pay for that speech was only $195, 000. 64 

RenCap, which is registered in Cyprus, is populated by former Russian intelligence officers with 
close ties to Putin. In correspondence with the State Department seeking approval for the speech, 
Clinton’s office simply describes the firm as “an investment bank focusing on emerging markets.” 
According to Businessweek , when Putin became president of Russia in 2000, RenCap “hired several 
executives with connections to the Kremlin and Russian intelligence service, now known as the FSB 
[Russian Domestic Intelligence Service].” Yuri Kobaladze, executive director at the firm, served for 
thirty-two years as a KGB and SVR (the foreign intelligence arm of the Russian government) officer, 
retiring with the rank of general. 65 Yuri Sagaidak, the deputy general director at RenCap, was a 
colonel in the KGB. 66 Vladimir Dzhabarov served simultaneously as an officer in the FSB and first 
vice president at RenCap from 2006 to 2009. 67 

RenCap was also watching the Uranium One deal. Only three weeks before Clinton’s speech, on 
May 27, RenCap had been pushing Uranium One stock. “We believe the company is well positioned 
to provide impressive volume growth in the global sector and play the uranium spot price recovery,” 
RenCap wrote in a twenty-eight-page report on the company. It actively encouraged investors to buy 
the stock. 68 

Clinton’s hour-long, half-million-dollar speech on the theme of Russia “going global” was 
followed by a plenary session that included Renaissance Capital executives and senior Russian 
government officials. 

During his Moscow visit, Bill also met with Putin himself. 

Just days earlier the FBI had made a series of arrests, breaking up a Russian spy ring. Ten sleeper 
agents, using encrypted data transferred through digital images, invisible ink, and a sophisticated 
system for transferring information by switching bags at a train station in Queens, had been broken up. 
Among the spy ring’s targets: a leading fundraiser for Hillary who also happened to be a Clinton 
friend. A Russian sleeper agent named “Cynthia Murphy” was instructed “to single out tidbits 
unknown publicly but revealed in private by sources close to State Department.” 69 According to the 
FBI, intercepted communications showed that the chief assignment of the ring would be “to search 
and develop ties in policy-making circles in U.S.” 70 

When Bill sat down with Putin, it didn’t take long for the subject of Russian espionage to come up. 
“You have come to Moscow at the exact right time,” Putin told the former president, according to the 
New York Times . Waving a finger at him, Putin continued, “Your police have gotten carried away, 
putting people in jail.” 71 In response, “Clinton appeared to chuckle.” 72 

Clinton and Putin had a close relationship. President Boris Yeltsin first appointed Putin prime 

minister in 1999, while Bill was still president, and they had remained in contact ever since. In 
January 2009, while at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill had gone to Putin’s private party at 
the Sheraton, where he was greeted by the Russian leader as “our good friend” before cheering him 
with vodka shots. The pair then headed off to a private room where they “talked deep into the 
night.” 73 In September 2013, as the Ukrainian crisis built, Clinton offered what the Russian news 
agency RIA Novosti called “Rare U.S. Praise for Putin” on CNN. Clinton described the Russian 
leader as “very smart” and “brutally blunt.” When he was asked by CNN’s Piers Morgan if Putin ever 
reneged on a deal, Clinton responded: “He did not. He kept his word on all the deals we made.” 74 

Remember, for the Russian purchase of Uranium One to go through, it required approval by CFIUS, 
of which Hillary was a member. “We have provided all relevant information requested in the U.S., 
and elsewhere and we expect approval in due time,” said spokesman Dmitry Shulga. 75 

Hillary Clinton had long had a reputation as a CFIUS hawk, opposing the sale of US strategic assets 
to foreign governments. She had also been a consistent critic of lax reviews by that body in the past. 
After a Bush administration CFIUS review approved the 2005 purchase of several ports in the United 
States by the sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, then senator Clinton was quick to 
denounce it. When the Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings on the matter in early 2006, 
Hillary promptly assumed the role of chief prosecutor. She not only argued that the CFIUS decision 
was wrong, she condemned administration officials for failing to consider the national security 
implications of the ports deal. She was particularly concerned because the deal involved not just a 
foreign company, but a foreign government. “For many of us,” she said, “there is a significant 
difference between a private company and a foreign government entity.” 76 

In 2007 Hillary led the charge to pass legislation to significantly strengthen CFIUS. And during her 
2008 presidential bid, it was Hillary alone among the major candidates from either party who raised 
the case for strengthening CFIUS as an important way to protect America’s economic sovereignty and 
national security. Her presidential campaign rightly described her as “an outspoken proponent of 
strengthening CFIUS.” 77 

When she became secretary of state, Hillary Clinton continued to support a robust CFIUS and led 
efforts by the panel to block Chinese companies from buying a mining business, a fiber-optic 
company, and even a wind farm in Oregon. 78 

But however hawkish Hillary might have been on other deals, this one sailed through. The Russian 
purchase of Uranium One was approved by CFIUS on October 22, 2010. Hillary’s opposition would 
have been enough under CFIUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the 
president. That never happened. 

The result: Uranium One and half of projected American uranium production were transferred to a 
private company controlled in turn by the Russian State Nuclear Agency. Strangely enough, when 
Uranium One requested approval from CFIUS by the federal government, Ian Telfer, a major Clinton 
Foundation donor, was chairman of the board, a position he continues to hold. 

In 2010, in reporting to the US government, Russian officials said they were looking to buy just 
slightly more than 50 percent of the company and promised “not [to] increase its share in Uranium 
One, Inc.” 79 But by the beginning of 2013, the Russian government moved to buy out the company’s 
other shareholders entirely. Today it owns the company outright. 80 

Xhe Russian purchase of a large share of America’s uranium assets raised serious national security 
concerns for precisely the same reasons Hillary had condemned previous deals. A foreign 
government would now have direct control over a very valuable commodity; the Russian government 
would reap hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues every year; and it would allow the Russian 
government to use Uranium One assets to honor supply contracts with US reactors while treeing up 
other uranium assets to send to more dangerous regions of the world — where Russia was already 
known to be involved. Lawmakers in Washington had raised these concerns. 

Still, despite a long record of publicly opposing such deals, Hillary didn’t object. Why the 
apparent reversal? Could it be because shareholders involved in the transactions had transferred 
approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives? Or because her husband had 
profited from lucrative speaking deals arranged by companies associated with those who stood to 
profit from the deal? Could it be because Bill — and possibly she herself — had quietly helped build 
the uranium assets for the company to begin with? These questions can only be answered by Hillary 
herself. What is clear is that based on State Department ethics documents, she never revealed these 
transactions to her colleagues, the Obama White House, or to Capitol Hill. 

For Moscow, the approval was a major victory. Kiriyenko, the head of Rosatom, told Russian 
president Dmitry Medvedev that the United States would now become “a key market” for Rosatom 81 
Because Uranium One also owned the rights to those large mines in Kazakhstan, uranium flows to 
Russia increased. As one Uranium One official put it in a corporate presentation, the company’s 
operations “facilitate substantial exports of uranium to Russia.” 82 

In 2013 Rosatom announced plans to take 100 percent control of Uranium One. It didn’t even 
bother to ask the Obama administration for approval this time, because the transaction “involved the 
same parties” and the move did not technically “change the corporate structure of Uranium One.” 83 

Pravda hailed the move with an over-the-top headline: “Russian nuclear energy conquers the 
world.” Taking lull control of Uranium One would “consolidate control over uranium assets in the 
former Soviet Union and pave the way for the expansion of access to resources in Australia and South 
Africa.” 84 The Russian takeover of Uranium One yielded shareholders a premium price. Rosatom 
offered Telfer and other shareholders a 32 percent premium on the share price, yielding them 
millions. 85 

In the fall of 2013 Rosatom passed operational control of the Bushehr nuclear reactor to Iran, and 
in September Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Hassan Rouhani announced that “Tehran and 
Moscow will cooperate in the fixture construction of a second nuclear power plant at Bushehr,” 
adding that “construction work is to start soon.” 86 

Meanwhile, Uranium One made an audacious bid to mine for uranium on state land in Arizona, near 
the Grand Canyon. Using a shell corporation called Wate Mining, it proposed accessing the site 
through Navajo Nation lands. The company apparently hoped that the Navajo Nation wouldn’t notice 
who controlled the company, which was obscured on government forms. “The fact that the applicant 
failed to frilly disclose ownership information does not sit well,” said the Navajo Nation Department 
of Justice. 87 Plans for the mine have been suspended in light of protests. 88 

Global deals involving the transfer of funds and nuclear technology were not limited to Russia. 
Another troubling transaction that occurred during the same period, while Hillary was in the Senate, 
involved characters representing India whose political interests appear to have been advanced by 
their friendship with the Clintons — accompanied in turn by large donations and payments. 


Indian Nukes 

Howto Win a Medal by Changing Hillary’s Mind 

In May 1998 the government of India shook the world. With a series of five underground nuclear 
tests, the government set off a corresponding series of political explosions. 

Code-named Operation Shakti (the word means “strength” in Sanskrit), the 58th Engineer Regiment 
of the Indian Army took special measures to ensure that test preparations went undetected by the 
United States. With its bold act, India, in the words of one of the country’s leading commentators, 
“acquired de facto nuclear weapon status.” 1 

For President Bill Clinton, the tests were a surprise slap in the face. Preventing the spread of 
nuclear weapons and technologies had been a Clinton administration priority. Early in his presidency 
he had launched “a personal initiative to halt, roll back and eliminate the nuclear [programs] of both 
India and Pakistan.” 2 The tests were an embarrassing public dismissal of these efforts. 

Clinton was livid. He erupted in a “volcanic fit” when he heard the news, according to foreign 
policy adviser and longtime friend Strobe Talbott. 3 Clinton took the tests as a personal affront, as 
well as a threat to the nuclear nonproliferation and test ban treaties he was pushing. He responded 
with “an intense effort to threaten international isolation” unless India signed the test ban treaty and 
“took other steps to reduce nuclear dangers.” 4 

The nonproliferation treaty (NPT) entered into force in 1970 and recognized five countries as 
nuclear powers: the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China. The NPT was 
designed to prevent any other country from attaining nuclear weapon status. If a country signed the 
treaty, it would be given the benefit of access to peaceful nuclear technology. 

Clinton chose to denounce India’s nuclear tests with Chinese president Jiang Zemin at his side. 
(This was particularly offensive to India, which considered Beijing a regional rival.) He also lent 
American support to United Nations Resolution 1172, which called on India to stop testing and 
required them to become parties to the NPT. But most importantly, Clinton imposed a series of 
restrictions on the export of US nuclear technologies to India with the express purpose of “keeping the 
lid on Indian nuclear and ballistic-missile technology.” 5 

Clinton’s India sanctions were motivated by a strong belief in the importance of the NPT. Bill and 
Hillary Clinton have vigorously supported enforcing and extending the treaty. Both as first lady and 
then as a US senator, Hillary shared her husband’s fervent support for the NPT and the test ban 
treaty. 6 In a 2007 article in Foreign Affairs , then senator Clinton declared, “As President, I will 
support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.” 7 Throughout the 2008 
presidential campaign and during her confirmation as secretary of state, she voiced continued support 
for staunch nonproliferation efforts. “The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of the 
nonproliferation regime, and the United States must exercise the leadership needed to shore up the 
regime,” she said during her Senate confirmation hearings. As secretary of state she promised that the 
administration would “place great importance on strengthening the NPT and the nonproliferation 
regime in general ... we must reinvigorate our commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 

(NPT) in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and the potential for nuclear terrorism.” 8 

India had never signed the nonproliferation treaty and was not about to. But as the Clinton 
administration passed and the Bush administration took office in January 2001, New Delhi began 
thinking about getting the sanctions lifted. Hoping to make that happen they hired expensive lobbyists 
and encouraged Indians in the United States to build rapport with both political parties. There were 
also a series of large payments made at pivotal moments to the Clinton machine. Some of these 
payments came in the form of lucrative speeches, paid for by Indian entities with a direct interest in 
having the sanctions lifted. Others came in the form of donations to both Hillary’s Senate campaigns 
and her presidential bid, by those who could legally do so. But mostly, they came as millions in 
donations to the Clinton Foundation. 

Tracing the real source of some of those millions would prove impossible, but their effect on the 
Clintons’ policy toward India seems apparent. In the end, both Bill, who initially imposed the 
sanctions against the Indian government, and Hillary, who supported that policy, played a vital role in 
getting them lifted. Shortly after the legislation passed, the Indian government granted one of its most 
prestigious civilian awards to a close Clinton family friend precisely because, as they saw it, he got 
Hillary to support the legislation. 

oant Chatwal might not strike one as a consummate political insider. A Sikh from India with piercing 
brown eyes, Chatwal arrived in the United States in 1975 by way of Ethiopia and Canada. Earlier in 
his life, Chatwal served in the Indian military as a jet pilot. In the United States he set about building 
a commercial empire of Indian restaurants and hotels, primarily in New York City. First came the 
Bombay Palace restaurant chain, followed by the luxurious Hampshire Hotels. Chatwal is a study in 
contrasts — a globe-trotting businessman with celebrity friends and high-level political connections, 
yet an earthy Punjabi who still enjoys eating s arson ka saag. Even after more than thirty years in the 
United States, he remained a staunch Indian patriot, and still refers to India as “my motherland.” 

His deep friendship with the Clintons began with a mutual love for Indian cuisine. Bill first tasted 
Indian food at a political fundraiser held at Chatwal’s New York City restaurant, the Bombay 
Palace. 9 But, as we will see, some savory financial transfers helped, too. 

Chatwal has always been exceedingly blunt about how and why he steered money in an effort to 
influence events in Washington. “I used to spend money on senators and congressmen,” said Chatwal. 
While in 1988 that “investment” had been in Michael Dukakis, Chatwal “next started betting on 
various presidents” and “happened to click with Clinton.” 10 The former governor of Arkansas was 
exceedingly thankful. Chatwal says Clinton offered him whatever post he wanted once he was elected 
president, but Chatwal said he simply wanted closer US-Indian relations. When Hillary ran for the 
Senate in 2000, Chatwal became one of her largest soft- money donors. 11 

By the time Bill left the Oval Office in 2001, Chatwal was firmly in the Clintons’ inner circle. Bill 
appointed him a trustee of the Clinton Foundation, an appointment reserved only for longtime friends 
and large financial benefactors. Chatwal had lavished money on the Clintons, including hundreds of 
thousands in soft-money donations and millions in campaign funds raised, and he continued his 
largesse once Bill was a private citizen. Chatwal helped arrange for millions of dollars in lucrative 
speaking fees and steered additional millions to the Clinton Foundation. 12 When Hillary ran for the 
Democratic presidential nomination in 2007, he was cochair of her presidential exploratory 
committee. He even received that most prized of gifts in the Clinton universe: an invitation to attend 

Chelsea’s wedding. 

Sant Chatwal’s son Vikram also became a Clinton benefactor. Widely known for his partying 
ways, Vikram became Hillary’s 2008 campaign bundler. 13 Tooling around New York in an Aston 
Martin, he was known to run up large bar tabs and date everyone from Lindsay Lohan to various 
supermodels. Like his father a committed Sikh, he was known around town as the “Turban Cowboy.” 

Vikram considers the Clintons close friends. According to the New York Observer, ‘“I know him 
[Bill Clinton] very well,’ he said of the former President. He added that the two men have often sat 
down and talked about books and Gandhi, as well as, he said, ‘women and models I’ve dated. He, 
like any man in the world, appreciates beauty.’” 14 

When Vikram got married in India in 2006, Bill Clinton attended the wedding. Guests “were 
welcomed by dancing eunuchs, elephants painted entirely white and whitewashed men wearing angel 
wings on white horses.” 15 The Clintons also attended Sant Chatwal’s other son’s wedding, a more 
calm affair at Tavern on the Green in New York in 2002. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, Sant Chatwal has a history of legal trouble involving financial 
transactions and has declared bankruptcy on at least one occasion. In 1995 he came under a cloud of 
legal suspicion concerning the bilking of millions from Indian banks. In the United States he was 
chased by the IRS and the New York State government for $30 million in unpaid taxes. 16 In a visit to 
India with Clinton in May 2001, Chatwal was arrested and charged with defrauding the New York 
City branch of the Bank of India out of $9 million he borrowed in 1994. “He posted bail equivalent to 
$32,000, then fled India, boarding a flight to Vienna, despite an attempt by authorities to detain him” 
reported the New York Daily News. 11 

In 1997 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) “sued Chatwal over his role as a 
director and a guarantor of unpaid loans at the failed First New York Bank for Business,” the 
Washington Post reported. Regulators were frustrated that Chatwal claimed he couldn’t repay the 
money (reported to be “in excess of $12 million”), despite the fact that he continued to live in a New 
York penthouse worth millions of dollars. 18 

Three years later, with no settlement on the horizon, Chatwal entertained guests in his lavish 
penthouse for Hillary’s Senate campaign, raising $500,000. 19 On December 18, 2000, just a few 
months after the fundraiser (while the Clintons were still in the White House), the FDIC “abruptly 
settled” the case against Chatwal, according to the Washington Post, allowing him to pay a mere 
$125,000 and walk away. 

The Chatwals undoubtedly enjoyed the perks and access that came with contributing and raising 
money for politicians like the Clintons. But what Sant Chatwal wanted for all that money extended far 
beyond the ordinary transactions that take place in Washington. He wanted to i nfl uence American 
policy toward India, particularly as it related to the sensitive area of nuclear technology. He openly 
admitted that he “spent tons of money, time and effort to make sure that the [Indian-US] nuclear deal 
goes through.” 20 Some of that money was spent in India, where, according to a leaked diplomatic 
cable between the US embassy in Delhi and the US State Department, at least two ministers and 
several members of parliament were claimed to have been paid off, with reports of “two chests 
containing cash” ready for use as “pay-offs” to win support for the Indian-US nuke deal. Chatwal was 
alleged to be involved, but he maintains the allegation is baseless. 21 What we do know is that 
millions were spent on cultivating the relationship with the Clintons, who not only received money 
directly through lucrative speaking deals, but also reaped millions in donations to the Clinton 

On July 18, 2005, President George W. Bush and visiting Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh 
signed a letter of intent at the White House to allow India access to US nuclear technology. The 
agreement was part of a Bush administration policy to work closely with India to serve as a 
counterbalance to China. But the agreement required Congress to amend US law and make a special 
exception for India. 

The plan met immediate criticism on Capitol Hill. Democrats and Republicans both argued it 
would lead to greater nuclear proliferation by rewarding a country that had violated the NPT. 
Remarkably silent during this debate was Hillary Clinton, who not only sat on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, but was also a senior member of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities, which dealt specifically with nuclear proliferation issues. 

In September 2005 Bill Clinton flew on Frank Giustra’s plane from Uzbekistan to Lucknow, India. 
The capital city of the state of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow was not Mumbai or any of India’s other 
cosmopolitan cities. Clinton’s visit set off an intense flurry of local interest and activity. The road 
from the airport to his hotel was “freshly tarred” for his arrival and party workers hung banners along 
the road praising Clinton’s visit. Along for the ride were Giustra, Doug Band, fundraiser Tim 
Phillips, and Sant Chatwal, who had made the arrangements. 22 

Clinton and his companions checked into the Taj, a palatial hotel with graceful pillars on the banks 
of the Gomti River in the heart of the city’s business district. Bill’s six-person delegation had two 
entire floors to themselves and enjoyed a large feast with evening entertainment. Before the festivities 
began, Clinton joined Chatwal for a private meeting where he was introduced to an obscure member 
of the Indian parliament named Amar Singh. 23 

Amar Singh has an easy swagger and a broad grin, marking a flamboyant manner and a combative 
attitude that has suited him well in the sharp-elbowed world of Indian politics. (He once got into a 
fistfight on the floor of the Indian parliament.) Heavyset, with thick glasses and thinning hair, Singh 
has another notable quality. His “access to big money is . . . legendary,” according to the Indian 



Singh would be implicated in a number of financial and vote -buying scandals in Indian politics. In 
2011 he was indicted on charges that he bought votes in parliament to secure the nuclear deal. 25 A 
trial was never held. 

What Singh discussed with Clinton and Chatwal was never made public. They met for about an 
hour, but in that short span of time a close collaboration and friendship between the Indian politico 
and both of the Clintons began. 

After the meeting, the three men headed off for a big bash at the state chief minister’s bungalow. 
According to reports, the “bullet proof dining hall” was outfitted with twenty-six air conditioners and 
the event included 150 members of India’s elite — including Bollywood stars, industrialists, and 
politicians — who dined on delicacies while enjoying live performances. 26 There were dancers and 
music from jazz fusion to a song titled “Sexy Rocksy Chicago Girl.” 27 

Despite having only just met, Clinton and Singh offered immediate and enthusiastic praise for one 
another. Singh took to the podium to praise Clinton for his “immense love for India” and proposed 
that he be granted Indian citizenship. 28 Clinton then rose and talked about his love for India and 
addressed the host as “friend Amar Singh.” The former president then publicly extended an invitation 
for Singh to attend the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York in a few days as his guest. 

Clinton spent fifteen hours in Lucknow and then left. Opposition parties denounced the lavish party 

and criticized Singh and state officials for, in the words of one Indian newspaper, “hosting a mega 
bash for former U.S. President Bill Clinton at a time when hundreds were dying in the State due to 
Japanese encephalitis.” 29 Singh was openly triumphant, explaining to the media how Clinton’s visit 
helped his party “score over its rivals.” 30 

Clinton’s visit was a major coup for Singh. Asked later how he managed to get Clinton to visit his 
town, Singh said, “I would say he is a charming man and very kind to lesser mortals like me. I don’t 
see any other reason for him to take this trouble.” 31 

Following their brief meeting Singh was immediately — and mysteriously — elevated in Clinton 
World. Singh took Bill Clinton up on his invitation to attend CGI in New York. The massive gabfest 
was attended by thousands of politicians, entrepreneurs, and so-called deep thinkers. During the Cold 
War, the Soviet hierarchy was reflected in its arrangement on Lenin’s Tomb during the annual May 
Day parade. In the Clinton universe, the hierarchy was reflected in the seating chart at CGI; it allowed 
people to figure out who was in and out of the Clinton orbit. In 2005 Singh not only attended the 
Global Initiative, he was granted a place at the head table. It was a remarkable elevation for a man 
who was in all other respects a complete unknown. As one Indian- American publication put it when 
they interviewed him after the Initiative meeting, Singh “could not explain why the Clintons gave him 
space at the head table.” He told them, 

If they let me to sit on the head table, the same question was asked to me by the prime minister of Mauritius — which country are 
you heading? I said I belong to Uttar Pradesh and am a humble political worker. They were also astonished. ... So, I don’t know 
what it is. [Bill] Clinton is the best person to answer this question why he gave me that kind of honor . 32 

Following the Clinton confab, Singh had a private dinner with the Clintons at their home in New 
York. When asked, Singh refused to say who else was at the dinner. During the visit Singh said he 
cultivated his relationship with Hillary Clinton. “I met Madame Clinton and in spite of her busy 
schedule, she was kind enough to give me considerable amount of time on one-on-one meeting,” said 
Singh. 33 (Apparently he came bearing gifts; he gave the senator from New York perfume oils in a Taj 
Mahal presentation case.) Singh’s relationship with the Clintons also drew the interest of the Indian 
media, which was well aware of his antics, and noted that he “seems to dote on the Clintons.” 34 

In 2006 a bill was introduced in Congress called the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful 
Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006. Its purpose: to finalize an agreement that would gradually 
lift restrictions on nuclear trade with India. Hillary was both a senior member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and a cochair of the Senate’s India Caucus, which a group of senators formed to 
work together with Indian government officials to improve US-India ties. But she showed no 
immediate favor for the Hyde Act as it started to make its way through Congress. The Times of India 
noted in 2006 that “India could be looking at the possibility of a Democrat presidency, Hillary 
Clinton, Obama, or anyone else — friends of India doubtless, but perhaps opponents of the nuclear 
deal.” 35 

Hillary supported a series of amendments that would impose stricter terms on the Indian 
government. These included three amendments offered by Senators Barbara Boxer, Byron Dorgan, 
and Russell Feingold. One was a “killer amendment” that would have effectively gutted the bill by 
capping India’s fissile production. But that amendment failed. The initial legislation passed, but there 
would be additional legislation that would need to be signed, and Hillary’s role was central in getting 

that approved. Hillary was still a reluctant and questionable supporter of the bill, prompting a 
headline in the Indian American media that the community was “upset” with her stance on the issue. 36 
As the New York Times reported, it was Hillary “whose support is viewed by Indian- American 
leaders as crucial to winning broader Democratic backing for the plan.” 37 

Up to this point the Clinton Foundation had experienced only limited public success in securing 
contributions from Indians. But now, those with a keen interest in seeing the nuclear deal approved 
began steering money to the Clintons. 

Indian industrialists and elites, who could not contribute to Hillary’s political campaigns, much 
less vote for her, started making highly publicized appearances at Clinton campaign fundraising 
events. In June 2007 Chatwal put together a dinner for Clinton featuring Indian billionaires Srichand 
Hinduja and Lakshmi Mittal. The fundraisers targeted Indians who were now American citizens or 
who had permanent status. “They [Hinduja and Mittal] can’t give money,” noted Chatwal. “It’s to 
bring a little attraction.” The attraction of course was for Indians in the United States who could 
donate, and who might want to do business with these industrialists. 38 These introductions are worth a 
great deal to those in a position to exploit them. 

Hinduja and Mittal couldn’t donate to Hillary’s presidential campaign, but they could and did write 
large checks to the Clinton Foundation. (Mittal contributed between $1 million and $5 million.) 
Indeed, India quickly became a rich vein of Clinton Foundation support. In Washington, the 
Confederation of Indian Industry hired lobbyists to push for a nuclear deal; at the same time, they sent 
the Clinton Foundation a check for between $1 million and $5 million. 39 (These donations were 
revealed only after Hillary’s nomination as secretary of state, and while the foundation is no longer 
required to disclose donors since she left office, once the nuclear deal was sealed such donors 
appeared to cease their generosity.) The Hindustan Construction chairman and managing partner, Ajit 
Gulabchand, donated money while in New York in late September 2007. 40 Today Hindustan 
Construction is involved in several nuclear-power construction projects in India. And there were 
mysterious donations never really accounted for — as we will see. 

By the summer of 2008 Hillary’s presidential bid had failed and the United States Nuclear 
Cooperation Approval Nonproliferation Enhancement Act (H.R. 7081) — a bill finalizing the export 
of nuclear technologies to India — required action in the US Senate. Hillary had endured a bruising 
presidential nomination fight against Senate colleague Barack Obama, who would now become the 
Democratic standard-bearer. But when it came to the nuclear deal, Indian officials still looked to 
Hillary. According to Professor Vijay Prashad of Trinity College in Connecticut, “Obama’s caution 
about the deal put the fear of failure through elite circles in New Delhi, and so pressure mounted to 
get Washington to act. Senator Hillary Clinton’s nod was considered to be essential.” 41 

Notably enough, the most important Clinton advisers on nuclear proliferation matters issued 
blistering criticisms of the nuclear deal. Strobe Talbott, a longtime friend of both Bill and Hillary 
who had served in the State Department during Bill’s presidency, wrote scathingly that with the terms 
of the agreement, “the [Bush] administration granted India almost all the privileges of an NPT 
member, especially with regard to helping India develop its civilian nuclear power industry. ... In 
return, the United States (and the world) received nothing in the form of concrete Indian steps toward 
nuclear restraint in its military programs.” The deal was “really a step toward a breakdown in the 
international nonproliferation regime.” 42 

Robert Einhorn, Hillary’s adviser on nuclear proliferation during the 2008 presidential bid, was 
also withering in his criticisms of the deal, which he strongly opposed. Einhorn had also served in the 

State Department during Bill’s presidency, and Hillary would tap him in 2009 to handle proliferation 
issues during her tenure as secretary of state. Einhorn called the deal “a radical departure from 
longstanding legal obligations and policies that precluded nuclear cooperation with states not party to 
the Nonproliferation Treaty.” 43 

In short, the agreement severely threatened the NPT that Bill and Hillary themselves had strongly 
supported. As the Times of India put it, “Why is this deal important? Because for the first time, 
someone has decided to let India have its cake and eat it too. You stay out of the NPT, keep your 
weapons, refuse full scope safeguards, and yet get to conduct nuclear commerce in a system that is 
dead against such a formulation. That’s the bottom line of this deal.” 44 

It was for this reason that additional longtime Clinton friends and allies, like Congresswoman 
Ellen Tauscher, also opposed the 2008 nuclear deal. In an apocalyptic New York Times op-ed piece, 
Tauscher warned that “the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — for 50 years, the bulwark against the 
spread of nuclear weapons — would be shredded and India’s yearly nuclear weapons production 
capability would likely increase from 7 bombs to 40 or 50.” She continued: “The Indian nuclear deal 
threatens international security not only by undermining our nuclear rules, but also by expanding 
India’s nuclear weapons program. That’s because every pound of uranium that India is allowed to 
import for its power reactors frees up a pound of uranium for its bomb program.” 45 

A few months after her piece, Tauscher was tapped by Hillary to serve as her under secretary of 
state for arms control and international security at the State Department. 46 

Back in 2008 Bill was paid $150,000 to give a satellite video address to the India Today Group, a 
media conglomerate whose chairman, Aroon Purie, was strongly in favor of the nuclear deal. 47 
According to the Clintons’ financial disclosures, required by Senate ethics rules, Bill had not given a 
paid speech in India for more than five years. But as the Indian nuclear deal vote loomed, he sat down 
in his Harlem office and made comments about world events to a live audience of Indian corporate 
and government officials gathered at the Taj Palace Hotel in New Delhi. 48 

Clinton discussed several subjects, including the looming US-Indian nuclear deal, and reassured 
the audience that while “some Democrats have some questions about the agreement ... the new 
government tends to honor agreements of the previous one.” In other words, if the deal was approved 
in Congress in March 2008, the next president, whether Republican or Democrat, would likely honor 
the agreement. 

As the drive to get the Clintons on board mounted, Sant Chatwal helped organize one of Bill’s 
biggest public speaking paydays, arranging for him to receive $450,000 to speak at a London charity 
event. The speech, noted the Chicago Tribune , brought him $170,000 more than he “charged for 
ordinary overseas for-profit appearances.” 49 

Apparently the father of the hostess was surprised by how much Bill was paid. “If we had been 
charged less, we could have given a bit more” to charity, he said. Bill’s fee accounted for 30 percent 
of the $1.5 million raised at the event for global relief efforts. 50 

In late September 2008, with the fate of H.R. 7081 still very much in question, Indian prime 
minister Manmohan Singh arrived in New York and met with a core group to discuss the fate of the 
nuclear cooperation deal. Huddled together in the Kennedy Rooms at the Palace Hotel, Manmohan 
Singh plotted strategy with Chatwal, Amar Singh, and others. 51 

Hillary had not been a supporter of the bill; indeed, her closest aides were all publicly opposed to 
it. But in September 2008, as the bill’s fate hung in the balance, Amar Singh sat down for a two-hour 
dinner in Washington with Hillary. Opposition to the bill had come primarily from Democrats. 

Hillary had supported the “killer amendment” two years earlier. It was even possible that the Senate 
might not vote on the bill. Yet in the days following, Singh expressed confidence based on what he 
heard from Hillary that the deal would go through. 52 

Having grown accustomed to the deal-making and influence-buying ways of the Indian parliament, 
Singh was open with the Indian media about what transpired in New York. Hillary Clinton probably 
considered herself fortunate that his comments were not reported in the American media. According 
to Singh, Hillary reassured him that Democrats would not hinder the passage of the India-US civil 
nuclear agreement through the US Congress. 53 When Indian journalist Aziz Haniffa asked if Senator 
Clinton “has promised and pledged to give all the support and try to pass [the deal] through in the 
Congress,” he said yes, adding, “because of the Clintons I am close to the Democrats.” 54 

Five Democratic senators opposed to the bill — Robert Byrd, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel Akaka, Russ 
Feingold, and Tom Harkin — blocked a vote. Amendments like those introduced in 2006, which 
Hillary had voted for, were reintroduced. This time, however, according to Indian activists who 
wanted to force a vote, Hillary’s office was “working closely” with them. 55 

The vote was called, and the bill was passed. “The passage by the United States Senate was the 
last step in securing this historic accord,” as one of the leaders in the effort to secure the deal put it. 
He even called it “the greatest moment in Indian- American political history.” 56 

In the end, Hillary pushed for the passage of the Indian nuclear deal, despite the public opposition 
of her closest advisers and the fact that it was a clear reversal of her previous policy positions. As 
secretary of state, she would talk about her commitment to creating a “21st century version of the 
NPT,” while also insisting that “the NPT will neither be altered nor replaced.” But that is precisely 
what her efforts on behalf of the Indian nuclear deal had done. 

Weeks after the vote, Hillary was nominated to be secretary of state by the newly elected Barack 
Obama. Part of the agreement struck with the Obama transition team was a requirement that the 
Clinton Foundation reveal the names of those who had donated money to the Foundation in the past 
and going forward. 

One of those listed was Amar Singh, the Indian politician who had risen so quickly in Clinton 
World. The mention of his name got scant attention in US media, but those in India who tracked 
politics took immediate notice. The Clinton Foundation revealed that Singh had given between $1 
million and $5 million. But there was a slight problem: based on Indian government financial 
disclosures, Singh’s net worth was approximately $5 million. If true, that meant Singh had given 
between 20 and 100 percent of his entire net worth to the Clinton Foundation! 

When the Times of India asked Singh about the huge donation, he shrugged it off. “I have nothing to 
say,” he told them. “I won’t deny anything.” Pressed further, Singh responded cryptically that “the 
payment could have been made by someone else on his behalf.” 57 

The payment or contribution was revealed smack in the middle of a session of the Indian 
parliament. Members of the opposition parties were up in arms. They mocked Singh’s alleged 
generosity. “He would be a saint or a mahatma to make such a gesture,” said political observer 
Vishwanath Chaturvendi. 58 A core group of senior government ministers, concerned about the 
appearance of the payment or contribution, called Singh in to explain. Singh apparently told them he 
had not given the money “and no cheque could be traced to him” Wfren asked why he was listed as a 
donor, he said “maybe” it was because he had facilitated the payment and therefore it “erroneously” 

appeared in the records. Singh never explained where the money came from. Government ministers 
were reportedly concerned that the whole episode might result in a criminal inquiry because of the 
“insinuation that Amar could have swung the Democrats’ support for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal as a 
quid pro quo.” 59 

Members of Singh’s political party denied that the money came from them “The party has not 
donated any such money,” declared Mohan Singh, a member of parliament (and no relation). 60 

In New York, the Clintons were stone quiet. Hillary was preparing for the co nfi rmation hearings 
and Bill hadn’t said anything. Amar Singh refused to give more interviews about the matter. 

One of Singh’s colleagues offered an explanation: the politician put wealthy friends in touch with 
the Clintons and was mistakenly given the credit: “Some of them may have mentioned Singh’s name 
while making contributions which found its way into the records.” 61 But this seems highly unlikely. 
Donations to the foundation would come via wire transfer or check — presumably not in cash. So the 
foundation likely would have known where the funds came from. Yet the Clinton Foundation has 
never explained their origin. Nor has it ever been determined who precisely donated the money. 
While donors connected to the Russian uranium deal such as Ian Telfer ’s Fernwood Foundation never 
had their donations revealed, in this case the donation was revealed but didn’t appear to be accurate 
as to the true source of the funds. 

What is known is that the Indian government rewarded many of those who helped clinch the deal 
and got the Clintons to support it. Securing the nuclear deal was a profound victory for elements in 
India who saw it as an important step forward in becoming a nuclear power. When the bill passed the 
Senate on October 2, it was Chatwal who made the first call to the Indian prime minister with the 
“fantastic” news. 

For his diligent work in securing passage of the bill, in early 2010 Sant Chatwal was presented by 
the Indian government with the Padma Bhushan Award, one of the country’s most prestigious civilian 
honors. “He played an important role in getting Hillary Clinton to support the nuclear deal,” said 
Sanjaya Baru, who was a media adviser to the Indian prime minister. “He is close to the Clintons. 
That is why he got the Padma [Bhushan] award.” 62 

Chatwal explained that he had worked hard to secure the deal. In a series of Indian media 
interviews, Chatwal noted that Hillary had changed her position on the issue and boasted about the 
role he played. At first, back in 2006, Chatwal said, “Even my close friend Hillary Clinton was not in 
favor of the deal then.” 63 But then he began working with her: “But when I put the whole package 
together, she also came on board.” He continued, “In politics nothing comes free. You have to write 
cheques in the American political system,” Chatwal said. “I know the system I had to work very 
hard. So I did as much as I could.” 64 In another interview he bluntly explained, “It took me four years 
and millions of dollars, which I paid out of my own pocket. I am very proud of that because I love my 
motherland.” 65 

No one appears to have asked them about these candid remarks. 

In September 2011 Amar Singh was arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act for bribing 
three members of parliament during a crucial 2008 vote related to the Indian nuclear deal. In July of 
that year the Left Party had pulled out of the ruling coalition over the nuclear deal, which it strongly 
opposed. The ruling coalition, which included Singh’s party, needed to prove it had enough votes to 
govern. On July 22, hours before the trust vote, large rolls of cash had allegedly been doled out by 
Singh, according to Indian authorities. Singh was later arrested and placed in Tihar Jail, one of the 
largest prison complexes in the world. While no trial was ever held, he was expelled from his 

political party and has retired from politics, at least for now. 66 

In April 2013 Vikram Chatwal, the Turban Cowboy, was arrested on heroin and cocaine charges. 
Security staff at the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, airport reportedly found half a gram of cocaine and six 
grams of heroin in his underwear. 67 

On April 17, 2014, Sant Chatwal stood in the Federal District Courthouse in Brooklyn and pleaded 
guilty to having “tunneled more than $180,000 in illegal contributions between 2007 and 2011 to 
three federal candidates,” including Hillary Clinton. He also pled guilty to witness tampering. 68 
Prosecutors alleged that Chatwal “used his employees, business associates, and contractors who 
performed work on his hotels ... to solicit campaign contributions on Chatwal’s behalf in support of 
various candidates for federal office and PACs, collect these contributions, and pay reimbursements 
for these contributions, in violation of the Election Act.” 69 

During the course of the federal investigation, FBI agents recorded Chatwal discussing the flow of 
money to politicians. He said without the cash, “nobody will even talk to you.” He added, “that’s the 
only way to buy them.” 70 

Chatwal also pleaded guilty to interfering with a grand jury investigation by telling a witness that 
“he and his family should not talk to FBI or IRS agents,” or if they did to lie about it. “Never, never” 
admit to reimbursements, he told them Later, he allegedly told the person, “cash has no proof.” 71 

While those who transferred cash in an effort to secure the nuclear deal have all faced legal 
jeopardy for one reason or another, the recipients of those transfers have moved on. The Clintons 
have never explained who donated the millions the foundation attributed to Amar Singh. And they 
have never discussed the role Sant Chatwal and his flow of money might have played in getting 
Hillary to change her views on the nuclear deal. Indeed, although Chatwal was a longtime member of 
the Clinton Foundation board of trustees, since his admission of guilt the foundation has erased any 
mention of him from the Clinton Foundation website. 72 


The Clinton Blur (I) 

Bill and Hillary’s Global Nexus of Philanthropy, Power, and Profit 

On a beautiful evening in October 2011 the Clinton Foundation held an elaborate gala at the 
Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles called “A Decade of Difference.” The night’s entertainment 
featured “socially responsible artists in music, film, and television” brought together to “celebrate the 
work and impact of President Clinton.” A company called Control Room, which modestly bills itself 
as “the world’s leading producer of massive global events,” put the events together. 1 

Lady Gaga sang a song. Looking over at Bill, she said “I just love you and your hot wife.” She 
praised the Clintons and promised the crowd, “Tonight, I thought we’d get caught up in a little Bill 
romance.” She then proceeded to belt out her hit “Bad Romance,” but made it Clinton specific. 2 

The Clinton Foundation is not your traditional charity. A traditional charity doesn’t have a globe- 
trotting ex-president, an ex-secretary of state, and their daughter running the show. But for all the 
benefits that derive from such star power, the real problem is delineating where the Clinton political 
machine and moneymaking ventures end and where their charity begins. 

The stated purpose of the Clinton Foundation is to “strengthen the capacity of people throughout the 
world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.” It was founded in 2001 and boasts a staff of 
350. Out of the foundation springs a hydra of projects including the Clinton Health Access Initiative, 
Clinton Climate Initiative, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI), and Clinton 
Hunter Initiative. 

But while the window-display causes of the Clinton Foundation, such as alleviating AIDS 
suffering, preventing obesity, and promoting economic growth in the developing world, are 
commendable, and while the foundation has done some legitimately good work, the moral authority of 
these works seems to provide a screen and pretext for a storehouse of private profit and promotion. 

Some might argue that since the Clinton Foundation is a public charity, the flow of funds — even 
from questionable foreign sources seeking favors — is not really such a big deal. After all, the funds 
go to help people and the Clintons don’t directly profit from the money that gets raised. But it is a big 
deal, at least according to federal law. If the donors are giving money to the Clintons to influence 
them, it should still be considered a bribe. American corporations that steer contributions to 
politically connected charities overseas in hopes of currying favor are violating the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act (FCPA). American corporations have been dinged for giving money to legitimate 
charities linked to politicians. In 2002, for example, the pharmaceutical company Schering Plough 
settled with the SEC over charges that it had violated the FCPA by donating $76,000 to a legitimate 
charity in Poland called the Chudow Castle Foundation. It’s a well-respected charity, but that was 
besides the point. The SEC said the donation was made to influence a Polish government health 
official who sat on the charity’s board. The company settled the claim with the feds for $500, 000. 3 

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton supported aggressive enforcement of the FCPA. When some 
business organizations tried to water down the law, she declared she was “unequivocally opposed to 
weakening” it. Hillary took a “strong stand when it comes to American companies bribing foreign 
officials.” 4 

So the fact that the Clinton Foundation is a charity should not deter us from investigating and 
exploring the flow of foreign money into its coffers. Indeed, a charity deserves special attention 
because it is the perfect tool of influence. Foreign governments, corporations, and financiers who 
can’t legally contribute to American political campaigns can write large checks to the Clinton 
Foundation in addition to paying high fees for speeches. 

The Clintons frequently elide the distinction between their philanthropic work, their self- 
promotional and public relations efforts, and their moneymaking ventures. As Fortune puts it in an 
eyebrow-raising sentence, the Clinton Foundation is “a new turn in philanthropy, in which the lines 
between not-for-profits, politics, and business tend to blur .” 5 

Bill Clinton has said as much himself. In describing the foundation’s role, he positions it as a 
unique go-between for businesses, governments, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The 
result is the creation of what he calls “public-goods markets.” He sees this as the wave of the future: 
“This is the kind of thing I believe will be a critical component of all philanthropic activity for the 
foreseeable future,” he told one reporter. “I believe that in the years ahead, the organization and 
expansion of public-goods markets will become one of the most important areas of philanthropy, and 
will be an area where philanthropy sometimes blurs into strict private enterprise .” 6 

In short, what the Clintons have attempted to do is create a crossroads for government, business, 
and NGOs, with the Clinton Foundation squarely in the middle. The Clinton Foundation calls this 
Bill’s “convening power,” his ability to bring together elites from business, politics, and the nonprofit 
world . 7 

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this approach, which, if pursued in a scrupulous way, has 
the capacity to do a lot of good. The Clintons’ ability to convene various public and private interests 
around a common cause or project does create leverage for getting things done in the global arena. 
But the blur also creates opportunity for moving a lot of money around with very little accountability. 
Being a convening power has another useful benefit: it means that the organization doesn’t actually 
need to get its hands dirty. While there are plenty of photos of Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea holding sick 
children in Africa, the foundation that bears their name actually does very little hands-on humanitarian 
work. “When President Clinton’s foundation was formed, the first thought was to run its own 
projects,” says Harvard professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter. But then they came up with the convening- 
power model. “What’s brilliant is that President Clinton provides the platform and enlightening 
speakers, but other people do the actual work of change .” 8 

This causes confusion about who is actually doing what. As relief work and humanitarian veteran 
Miles Wortman explains, “The Clinton Foundation ‘partners’ with other foundations in the provision 
of services. When the Gates Foundation, for example, provides revenue to the Clinton Foundation, 
and it in turn partners with the Gates Foundation in the provision of say, antiretroviral drugs, is this 
double accounting of activity?” 

This approach positions the Clinton Foundation in a way a politician could especially love: with 
little direct responsibility, it is able to take credit for good results and avoid blame for bad ones. 

Another important function of the Clinton Foundation appears to be employing longtime Clinton 
associates. Like any political machine, jobs must be provided to those who served the Clintons when 
in power and who may serve them again in the future. This may help to explain why the foundation’s 
senior ranks are populated with so many former political aides and associates, as opposed to those 
with extensive experience in charitable work. 

Ira Magaziner, who served the Clintons when Bill was in the White House — among other things, he 

was the author of Hillary’s famously convoluted health care reform proposal — has played a central 
role in the foundation. 9 As he put it in 2009, “The biggest part of the Foundation includes four 
operating initiatives, accounting for about 90 percent of the Clinton Foundation budget, all of which I 
started and run.” 10 These include the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which deals with matters 
related to HIV/ AIDS around the world; the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a domestic program 
focused on nutrition and health; the Clinton Hunter Initiative, which focuses on agriculture in Africa; 
and the Clinton Climate Initiative, which focuses on issues related to climate change. Even with 
structural changes in 2011 that diminished Magaziner’s administrative control, he still plays a key 

These Clinton Foundation initiatives are part and parcel of the Clinton Foundation apparatus. The 
CGSGI, for example, despite being ostensibly based in Canada, has an executive director based in 
New York City. An examination of CGSGI’s financial records indicates that the bulk of the money it 
collects gets transferred to the Clinton Foundation itself. It largely functions as a pass through. Senior 
positions in the foundation have been filled by Clinton insiders like Bruce Lindsey, Bill’s longtime 
friend and political adviser; John Podesta, who was Bill’s chief of staff at the White House; Valerie 
Alexander, a senior communications adviser for Hillary’s 2008 campaign; Amitabh Desai, former 
legislative aide to then senator Clinton; and Laura Graham, a deputy assistant in Bill’s administration 
from 1995 to 2001. 11 

The chief development officer at the Clinton Foundation is Dennis Cheng, who previously served 
as national finance director and New York finance director for Hillary’s run for the Democratic 
presidential nomination in 2007-2008. When Hillary became secretary of state, Cheng joined her at 
Foggy Bottom, where he served as the deputy chief of protocol of the United States. That gave him the 
ability to ensure that Clinton financial supporters were well represented in the pecking order when 
foreign heads of state made their official visits to Washington. 12 

The Clinton Foundation also hands out honorary titles such as “adviser” to businessmen and 
investors who are ostensibly involved in the activities of the foundation (and who are contributors). 
As we have already seen, investors operating in the developing world regularly use the title of 
“adviser to the Clinton Foundation” on their resumes. They travel with Bill when they visit 
developing countries in which the Clinton Foundation has activities and where the investors have or 
are seeking investments. 

The Clinton Foundation board of directors (or board of trustees as it has sometimes been called) is 
largely made up of the Clintons and their closest political aides and advisers. The tightness of the 
board has raised alarm bells at places like the Better Business Bureau (BBB). In 2013 the BBB 
conducted a charity review of the Clinton Foundation and found that it failed to meet minimum 
standards of accountability and transparency. It dinged the organization on its management and 
financial controls and pointed out that, despite having a staff of 3 19, the board of directors at the time 
had only three board members, who did not actually review the performance of the CEO. The BBB 
also said that board members did not receive information about financial arrangements with outside 
fundraising firms and consultants. 13 

Similarly, Charity Navigator, which evaluates and ranks philanthropic groups, will not rank or 
grade the Clinton Foundation. The explanation? The foundation’s “atypical business model” makes it 
difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate. 14 

The Clinton Foundation has added corporate executives or business investors to its board of 
trustees from time to time, especially if they are major contributors. One can only wonder how tight 

the screening process is, given that at least four Clinton Foundation trustees have either been charged 
or convicted of financial crimes including bribery and fraud. 

Vmod Gupta, the founder and chairman of the database firm InfoUSA, was a major Clinton 
financial supporter who served as a foundation trustee. In 2008 he was charged with fraud by the 
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for using company funds to support his luxurious 
lifestyle. He was alleged to have used more than $9.5 million in corporate funds to pay for personal 
jet travel, millions for his yacht, personal credit card expenses, and the cost of twenty cars. He settled 
with the SEC for $4 million. 15 

Company shareholders also filed suit against him for misuse of corporate funds, including paying 
Bill a $3 million consulting fee, and using corporate assets to fly the Clintons around. Gupta defended 
his relationship with the Clintons, saying that those payments and his relationship with the Clintons 
earned huge dividends for Infogroup. The company settled with shareholders to the tune of $13 
million. 16 

Sant Chatwal, whom we met in the previous chapter, was another foundation trustee who has been 
in legal trouble over the years, including his conviction for illegal campaign financing, obstruction of 
justice, and other charges. 17 

Victor Dahdaleh, another trustee, was charged by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in Great Britain 
with paying more than 35 million pounds in bribes to executives in Bahrain to win contracts of more 
than 2 billion pounds. He has worked for the American aluminum company Alcoa as a “super- 
agent.” 18 (The billionaire had his bail revoked in the case because he contacted prosecution 
witnesses.) 19 Dahdaleh was found not guilty after the SFO offered no evidence against Dahdaleh 
because a key witness, Bruce Hall, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to corrupt but refused to testify. 20 
Alcoa ended up pleading guilty in the US case arising out of the transaction and settled with the US 
Justice Department for $384 million. Dahdaleh was not charged in the United States individually. 21 

Current Clinton Foundation board member and trustee Rolando Gonzalez Bunster has been named 
in a fraud case in the Dominican Republic involving his company InterEnergy. The charges were filed 
by the Dominican government’s Anti-Corruption Alliance (ADOCCO). 22 In 2013 Bunster was 
charged along with officials of a government agency concerning alleged “ballooned” fees charged to 
the government. The company dismisses the charges as “baseless allegations.” 23 

The flow of funds into the Clinton Foundation comes from a variety of sources. While the 
foundation boasts that it has hundreds of thousands of contributors, it relies heavily on a group of 
high-dollar donors to fund its operations. Since it reports contributions in ranges, not exact amounts, it 
is difficult to know precisely how dependent it is on those donors. But approximately 75 percent of 
its money has come from contributions of $1 million or more. And as we will see, many of these 
contributions came from foreign nationals who decided to give large gifts or make large pledges at 
times when they had business before the US government. 

As we have seen, the Clinton Foundation failed to report multimillion-dollar contributions from 
foreign entities like Ian Telfer’s Fernwood Foundation. Another Canadian mining investor whose 
contributions were never disclosed by the Clinton Foundation is Stephen Dattels. This mines-to- 
metals tycoon has donated millions of shares of stock to the foundation. 

On June 8, 2009, Dattels donated two million shares of stock in his company Polo Resources — 
worth about $40,000 at the time. Eight weeks later, on July 29, according to WikiLeaks, the US 
ambassador in Bangladesh urged the prime minister and energy minister to reauthorize the Phulbari 
Mines for the use of “open pit” coal mining. Dattels’s Polo Resources is an investor in the mine. 24 

By donating shares in small mining companies, Dattels is creating a powerful incentive for the 
Clintons to help his companies succeed. If the stock price rises, the value of the foundation’s shares 
will rise. In the case of Dattels, this potentially creates a significant co nfl ict of interest for Hillary 

This was not the first contribution Dattels made to the Clinton Foundation. Back in 2007 he had 
committed extensive financial support to CGSGI over a five-year period. He committed to do the 
same in 2012. The Dattels Family Foundation’s private website mentions the Clinton Foundation as a 
recipient of its support. But the name Dattels appears nowhere on Clinton donor disclosures nor does 
that of his company, Polo Resources. Again, the Clinton Foundation has failed to report a foreign 
contribution. How many more undisclosed foreign donors might there be? It is impossible to know. 
But this was a basic and simple requirement that demands further investigation. And we will meet 
more undisclosed donors later in this book. 

The flow of funds into the Clinton Foundation, which was supposed to be transparent, is far from it. 
As we saw in the previous chapter, even when contributions are disclosed, as in the case of an 
obscure Indian politician, he was apparently not really the source of those funds. Is this happening on 
other occasions? 

Perhaps the most important function of the foundation is to bolster Bill and Hillary’s reputations as 
global humanitarians by bringing relief and care to people all over the world. This reputation not only 
flatters the ex-president’s ego and benefits Hillary’s political career, but it also has real value both in 
terms of global influence and financial reward. But how much good has the Clinton Foundation 
actually done? 

At the Hollywood Bowl event, the publicity material included some sweeping claims about the 
Clinton Foundation’s accomplishments. “Over the past ten years,” it reads, “President Clinton’s 
vision and leadership have resulted in nearly 4 million people benefiting from lifesaving HIV/ AIDS 
treatments.” 25 This is perhaps the most popular and oft-repeated success of the foundation, and it 
stems from Bill’s efforts to negotiate and help create an international system whereby the cost of 
treatment drugs for HIV/ AIDS victims would be radically reduced. “We set out to organize a drug 
market to shift it from a high-margin, low-volume, uncertain payment process ... we were able to 

lower the price to just under $140 a person a year.” 26 

The claim is repeated when he is introduced for speeches around the country and when he is 
interviewed in the media. But what exactly does “we were able to lower” mean? 

The Clinton Foundation did sign some compacts, but prices were already dropping quickly because 
generic versions of treatment drugs were coming on the market. 27 According to public health experts, 
the foundation piggybacked on the efforts of other organizations. “He may take a little more credit 
than is due,” admits Princeton Lyman, who served in the State Department under Hillary and dealt 
with issues related to HIV/ AIDS in Africa. 28 

Here’s how the Center for Global Development explains how HIV/ AIDS drugs prices were 
lowered: “Essentially, policy entrepreneurs like Peter Piot of UNAIDS — along with activists based 
within organizations as Doctors without Borders, Partners in Health and later the Clinton 
Foundation [emphasis added] — brought together the pharmaceutical manufacturers with developing 
world governments by negotiating the lower prices.” 29 

Another claim often advanced by Bill himself is that the Clinton Foundation is on the frontlines of 
the HIV/ AIDS crisis in the developing world. As Magaziner puts it, “The Clinton Foundation is now 
involved in treating over two-thirds of the world’s children who are on treatment for AIDS.” 30 

But what exactly does “involved” mean? 

You might get the impression, if you look at the impressive photo displays on the Clinton 
Foundation website, that they are actually administering drugs to sick people. But the foundation 
doesn’t actually get involved in directly treating people. While organizations such as Doctors Without 
Borders, the Red Cross, or Samaritan’s Purse establish their own health care infrastructures — 
Doctors Without Borders had more than 300,000 HIV patients directly under their care in 2012 — the 
Clinton Foundation effectively has none. 31 

Instead it serves as a middleman. “They’ve gone around in a very deliberate process of finding 
what they call ‘care partners,”’ says JimYong Kim, who cofounded Partners in Health, which works 
with the Clinton Foundation. “That’s what Partners in Health is — our specialty has been working in 
rural areas.” 32 

The world needs its middlemen, of course. But what this really means is that in practice, the 
foundation’s work is heavily geared toward managing relief agency funds provided by foreign 
governments, such as Ireland, and dealing with health ministry bureaucrats in the developing world. 
In the relief world the Clinton Foundation works like a management consulting firm, such as 
McKinsey. But unlike McKinsey or another management firm, specific metrics on specific work by 
the foundation itself is hard to come by. 

Clinton’s motivation for taking on AIDS as a philanthropic cause has raised serious debate. Many 
who have been working in the field say he did a lousy job as president regarding the AIDS issue, 
largely ignoring it. As Greg Behrman, the author of a definitive book on the global AIDS crisis put it 
to the New York Times , “As president, though, the record is clear. Clinton was not a leader on global 
AIDS and the consequences have been devastating.” 33 Andrew Jack of the Financial Times, who 
traveled with Clinton to see his work on AIDS, asks whether, in light of his poor record as president, 
he is seeking some kind of “atonement.” 34 

According to Bill, his interest in working on AIDS issues stems primarily from a conversation he 
had with Nelson Mandela shortly after leaving the White House. Clinton says Mandela asked him to 
work on these issues to help Africa. 

Does Clinton’s motivation matter? It does if his ultimate purpose is to make himself look good. If 
that is the case, he will focus on appearances rather than actual results. And making the Clintons look 
good is clearly central to the foundation’s purpose. Its website is replete with pictures of Bill, and 
increasingly of Hillary and Chelsea, on humanitarian missions in remote locales in Africa or Asia. 
The press office also churns out media releases announcing foundation news or the activities of the 
Clinton family. 

The Clinton Foundation’s media machine focuses heavily on the family’s activities. One of its 
projects involved helping to pay for the refurbishment of a pediatric clinic in the African country of 
Lesotho. When Bill showed up in July 2006, he was greeted at the Maseru airport with a red carpet 
and a receiving line of government officials. For good measure, “cultural groups performed dances 
and songs,” according to US diplomatic cables. The king of Lesotho gave Bill a knighthood. 

Following the “celebratory reception,” Bill headed to the pediatric clinic his foundation had 
helped equip where he was serenaded by “choirs and children.” 35 Ignored in foundation releases and 
related press reports was the fact that months earlier, in December 2005, the Baylor College of 
Medicine and Bristol-Myers Squibb had opened a pediatric clinic in the same town. But there was no 
parade or celebration. “No one has star power like Clinton,” noted Dr. Mark Kline, president of the 
Baylor International Pediatric AIDS Initiative. “But the casual observer might be led to believe that 

no one else is doing anything, and that may draw resources away from others.” 36 

But beyond good publicity, the foundation serves other purposes as well. As we have already seen, 
Clinton’s visits to foreign locales frequently mix business with charitable work. When Bill flies into 
a country with an entourage, which may include businessmen with matters before the local 
government, he is there ostensibly to do (or simply talk about) his philanthropic work. But these visits 
often involve making useful introductions that coincide with major business deals in which Clinton 
Foundation donors are involved. 

The Clinton Foundation also provides opportunities for foreign leaders and foreign investors to 
burnish their (sometimes shaky) reputations and images by association with its praiseworthy 

Dictators like Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan, Meles Zenawi from Ethiopia (whom we will 
meet in chapter 7), and Paul Kagame of Rwanda might have terrible reputations when it comes to 
human rights, but they are invited guests at Clinton Foundation events where they are praised for their 
leadership. Kagame, for example, was a “Clinton Global Citizen of the Year” in 2009. He was 
praised by the foundation as a “brilliant military commander” and given the award for “leadership in 
public service.” What you won’t read in his bio is the fact that Kagame arrests his political opponents 
and censors journalists. Nor is there mention of the fact that the United Nations accuses Kagame’s 
militias of raping and slaying thousands of Hutu. It is widely believed that Kagame is largely 
responsible for fueling the civil war going on in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo. 37 

Whenever Kagame speaks before the Clinton Foundation or meets with Bill, he is quick to 
publicize it. He clearly recognizes that partnering with an ex-president grants him added legitimacy. 38 

The Clintons point out that neither Bill, Hillary, nor Chelsea take a salary from the Clinton 
Foundation. This is true — the hundreds of millions that pour into the foundation do not benefit the 
Clintons directly. But they profit from the foundation in a way that is both indirect and far more 
lucrative: by taking enormous speaking fees for talking about their charitable work. 

In his early post-presidential years Bill’s speeches were largely about his views of the world or 
his experiences in office. But in more recent years many of his speeches involve talking about the 
work of the foundation. 

In October 2006, for example, Bill was paid $150,000 for a speech to the Mortgage Bankers 
Association for “discussing world events and his work on behalf of the William J. Clinton 
Foundation.” 39 In September 2006 he was paid $450,000 to speak at the Fortune Forum, which is a 
charitable fundraising event in London. These are just a few examples among many instances. 
Clinton’s go-to speech, entitled “Our Common Humanity,” is largely about the work of the foundation. 

The Clintons’ charitable work puts money in their pockets in other ways, too. In 2007 Bill released 
a book called Giving that highlighted the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and those who 
work with it. He made $6.3 million from sales. 40 The book was widely criticized. Peter Baker, now 
of th eNew York Times, called it an “extended public service announcement masquerading as a 
book.” 41 

Blurring their charitable, political, and financial interests has served the Clintons well. When 
Hillary became secretary of state, the practice continued. Indeed, it reached a whole new level. 


The Clinton Blur (IT) 

The View from Foggy Bottom 

In 2009 Hillary Clinton was in Russia, where she pushed Russian officials to sign a multibillion- 
dollar airplane agreement with Boeing. The $3.7 billion purchase was a big deal for the aerospace 
company. Two months after Boeing won the contract, the company pledged $900,000 to the Clinton 
Foundation. The Washington Post called it “an indicator of a mutually beneficial relationship 
between one of the world’s major corporations and a potential future president. Clinton functioned as 
a powerful ally for Boeing’s business interests at home and abroad, while Boeing has invested 
resources in causes beneficial to Clinton’s public and political image.” 1 

When Hillary became secretary of state she announced a new commitment to what she called 
“commercial diplomacy” or “economic statecraft.” The idea was simple: she would use her 
diplomatic leverage to help American companies be more competitive overseas. If they needed help 
in a foreign country, Hillary would be there as a supportive partner. 

This was no idle commitment. As Businessweek put it in a retrospective look at her tenure, 
“There’s no doubt Clinton has had success using her personal clout to help a handful of companies 
close a handful of deals.” 2 

Hillary’s commitment to commercial diplomacy was laudable to the extent that she was committed 
to helping American firms be competitive in the global marketplace. But in practice it would prove 
difficult to distinguish the personal and political aspects of this kind of activity. 

In State Department parlance Hillary’s commercial diplomacy was executed as part of what it 
called “public private partnerships.” And the public-private partnerships came in many forms. The 
goals of these partnerships were often praiseworthy. But they often benefited friends of the Clintons. 

Power Africa, for example, like all such partnerships, has a noble goal: to help African countries 
develop large energy projects. 3 But as Forbes magazine points out, initiatives like Power Africa tend 
to favor politically connected firms. Winners include firms like Symbion Power, which counts former 
ambassador Joe Wilson as a member of its board. (Wilson, who we will meet again in chapter 8, is a 
Clinton friend and political ally.) 4 Another firm involved with Power Africa is Hecate Energy. Its 
founder David Wilhelm has no background in the field. For most of his professional life he served as 
a lobbyist and partner in Wilhelm and Conlon Public Strategies. Before that, he was the manager for 
Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. 5 

The pursuit of commercial diplomacy required a new infrastructure within the State Department. 
Shortly after her confirmation as secretary of state, Hillary created the Office of Global Partnerships. 
The director of this office would serve as the “chief liaison between corporate America, the State 
Department, and governments around the world.” 

To run this sensitive office, she turned not to a diplomat, a former corporate executive, or even 
someone withNGO experience overseas but to longtime political operative Kris Balderston. 6 

Balderston had served for eight years on Hillary’s Senate staff and also did a stint in Bill Clinton’s 
White House. His most famous role in Clinton World involved keeping the infamous List, which rated 

people as friends or enemies on a point system 7 In a December 8, 2008, memo Balderston had 
suggested the idea for a State Department “corporate office” to create a series of public-private 
partnerships matching private capital with public governmental power. Hillary loved the idea and 
adopted it immediately, putting Balderston in charge, despite his having no background in the area of 
international business. 8 

Other senior positions were given to political aides who had more experience in the world of 
Washington than in global affairs. Indeed, during her tenure both the State Department and the United 
States Agency for International Development (USAID), which fell under Hillary’s control, saw a 
substantial rise in staff. Staffing at the State Department increased 17 percent from 2008 to 2012, and 
USAID staffing was up 30 percent. 9 

One can hardly blame Bill and Hillary for seeking to place friends and supporters in jobs under 
their control. Like other prominent political figures, the Clintons need to keep a large constellation of 
aides, advisers, and friends gainfully employed. Some of this employment, as indicated above, is 
handled by way of the Clinton Foundation. But the State Department was a convenient place for 
rewarding supporters as well. To enhance her scope of patronage, Hillary made extensive use of 
what is called the special government employee (SGE) rule. This special category of staff allowed 
the Clintons to have their aides simultaneously involved with the Clinton Foundation, State 
Department, and various outside commercial interests. 

The SGE rule was originally designed to ensure that experts like scientists and engineers could be 
tapped for their expertise by the federal government without giving up their regular jobs at a research 
lab or university. The assignment was also supposed to be temporary — totaling no more than 130 
days out of 365. 

But Hillary used the SGE status not for scientists or academics but for political aides, some of 
whom simultaneously held jobs at Clinton-affiliated firms. Take Huma Abedin, who served as 
Hillary’s deputy chief of staff at State. As an SGE, Abedin was able to remain on the payroll of the 
Clinton Foundation, as well as on that of a corporate consulting firm called Teneo, which was started 
in 2009 by Bill’s longtime aide Doug Band. 

Teneo, where Bill was a paid adviser, represented firms who had often either paid for Bill’s 
speeches or donated to the Clinton Foundation. Also involved in Teneo was Declan Kelly. An SGE at 
State for a while, Kelly joined Teneo in 2011. Teneo’s clients included Fortune 500 companies, 
governments, and high-net-worth individuals. The companies it represented included Coca-Cola, 
UBS, and Standard Chartered. 

The arrangement worked seamlessly until March 2012, when Bill ceased to be a Teneo adviser. 
One of Teneo’s clients was MF Global, the commodities brokerage run by Clinton friend John 
Corzine. 10 MF Global collapsed after a series of highly leveraged trades. Some customers accused 
the firm of raiding their private accounts to shore up its finances after risky bets went sour. When 
news broke that MF Global was a client, Bill apparently felt it best to sever his ties. 

SGE Abedin played a central role in everything Hillary did. She assured a Senate committee that 
there was no cross-pollination between her job at the State Department and her other work at Clinton- 
connected entities. She explained that she provided “strategic advice and consulting services” to 
Teneo’s management team but did not provide “insights about the department, my work with the 
secretary or any government information to which I may have had access.” But public concerns were 
not so easily allayed. As the New York Times put it, “the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin’s 
work in the high echelons of one of the government’s most sensitive executive departments and her 

role as a Clinton family insider.” 11 

SGE Caitlin Klevorick, who worked as a consultant to Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, 
joined the State Department in 2009 as a special assistant to Cheryl Mills. In that capacity she 
“provided expert knowledge and advice to the counselor and the chief of staff and other department 
officials on a variety of important foreign policy issues,” according to the State Department. SGE 
status allowed her to keep her firm CBK Strategies, where she simultaneously worked for corporate 

Cheryl Mills herself, Hillary’s longtime chief of staff, was also granted SGE status so she could 
continue to direct Haiti relief efforts at the State Department while returning to work for the Clinton 
Foundation after Hillary resigned. 

SGE Elizabeth Bagley, who married into the RJR Reynolds tobacco fortune, was a longtime 
Hillary fundraiser who joined the State Department as a “special advisor to the Secretary” and then 
“special advisor for Secretary initiatives.” Bagley and her husband had kicked in more than $1 
million to the Clinton Foundation. At State, she was paid a $129,000 salary (the highest possible) and 
allowed to continue her other commercial activities. 

Ann Gavaghan, a former member of Hillary’s Senate staff, was also granted SGE special status. 
Gavaghan served as the chief of staff in the State Department’s Office of the US Global AIDS 

One value of SGE status is that ethics rules are looser than those that apply to regular public 
employees. SGEs can “work on a matter if you have a personal relationship with one of the 
parties.” 12 They are also able to work for clients with matters before the office they work in. And 
they can raise money for political candidates (or entities like the Clinton Foundation) “if you do so 
only during non-duty hours and if you do not use a government resource.” 13 

As the Boston Globe put it, this kind of arrangement is “fraught with potential conflicts and 
abuses.” 14 

Propublica, a nonprofit news organization, investigated the use of SGE status in the federal 
government and asked numerous government agencies to send them lists of SGEs at their agencies. 
According to Propublica ' s Justine Elliott and Liz Day, many of them did. But the State Department 
balked. So Propublica filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The State Department 
responded after several months that assembling the list would require “extensive research,” finally 
handing it over four months after that. State Department officials would not explain why they were so 
reluctant to share the information. 

The other tool Hillary used to create payroll opportunities for Clinton friends and allies was the S- 
class designation. S-class positions were under the direct purview and financial control of the 
secretary of state and no one else. This allowed Hillary to exclude State Department bureaucrats, 
Foreign Service officers, or civil servants from involvement or control over certain projects or 
activities, including everything from economic diplomacy to health care issues. As reporters Jonathan 
Allen and Amie Parnes put it in a sympathetic portrait of her tenure, Hillary appointed “a cluster of 
special ambassadors, envoys and representatives and senior advisers who exercised tremendous 
power to circumvent the department bureaucracy.” 15 

Hillary further centralized control over the awarding of government grants, contracts, and 
consulting agreements by dramatically reducing the independence of USAID, which was part of the 
State Department apparatus. Dubbed the “Foggy Bottom Smackdown” by some in Washington, 
Hillary effectively took away power from USAID administrators and in her Quadrennial Diplomacy 

and Development Review made clear that the agency’s budget would remain under the State 
Department. As the New Republic reported, not only were USAID programs further put under her 
control, but she populated the agency with loyalists who had little or no relevant experience. 16 

The practice of appointing special status employees throughout the State Department bureaucracy 
effectively blurred the lines between American diplomatic initiatives and the interests of the Clintons 
and their friends. 

Consider the case of Laureate Education — a typical example of the Clinton Blur in action. 

Laureate Education began as part of Sylvan Learning Systems but branched out to become one of 
the largest for-profit university systems in the world. Founded in Baltimore in 1999, it now comprises 
a sprawling network of campuses, including six in Saudi Arabia, a dozen in Brazil, three in China, 
and even one in Cyprus. 17 In Brazil alone, there are 130,000 students paying tuition to attend ten 
Laureate International schools on forty different campuses. 18 

Laureate recruits students through telemarketing. The call centers are often on the campus 
themselves and those making the calls are university students. 19 The university system spends more 
than $200 million a year on advertising, including television commercials, online campaigns, and 
billboards that dot the developing world. 

In early 2010 Bill signed on as “honorary chancellor” of Laureate. The title might have been 
“honorary,” but Bill got paid for his services. How much? It’s hard to know. Government disclosure 
forms did not require him to specify, only that it was “more than $1,000.” But part of his job included 
speaking at half a dozen or so Laureate schools every year, which, based on his typical fee scale, 
meant perhaps $ 1 million per year. 

Bill sparked tremendous excitement when he showed up in 2012 to address throngs of students and 
faculty at Laureate schools in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and Mexico City. He also visited campuses in 
Germany, Spain, Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, Peru, and the United States. 20 Bill’s face and name have 
been plastered on Laureate marketing materials and pictures of him have lined the walkways at 
campuses like Laureate’s Bilgi University in Istanbul, Turkey. 21 

The relationship between Laureate chairman Douglas Becker and the Clintons formed in the years 
before Hillary became secretary of state, when Becker started showing up at Clinton Global Initiative 
(CGI) events. In 2008 Laureate became a partner with CGI. By 2009 Becker was paying Bill to give 
speeches at Laureate campuses in Spain, Brazil, and Peru. 22 

Other Clinton friends were soon brought in. Henry Cisneros, who served as secretary of housing 
and urban development during Clinton’s presidency, became chairman of Laureate’s National 
Hispanic University advisory board. Cisneros delivered commencement addresses in San Jose, 
California, where he praised Laureate as a “pioneer in higher education for Hispanics.” 23 

But Laureate’s business practices have faced serious legal scrutiny and criminal investigations in 
some countries. In Mexico, Chile, and Turkey, where Laureate operates, for-profit universities are 
actually illegal. Laureate has put money into a struggling nonprofit school, getting positions on the 
board, then getting the school to hire Laureate for a variety of “services,” including computer- 
advisory services and English courses. Laureate has also received funds for the use of its trademark. 

According to Chile’s economic crimes unit, Laureate’s Chilean schools transferred more than $80 
million out of the country between 2011 and 2013. A national commission found that there were 

irregularities regarding Laureate’s activities. 24 In its financial filings with the US Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC), Laureate admitted that the service agreements are a way to “efficiently 
transfer funds out of the universities in these countries.” 25 

Becker, in addition to running Laureate, is also the chairman of the International Youth Foundation 
(IYF). This nonprofit sister organization (whose offices are less than a mile from Laureate’s in 
Baltimore) runs numerous programs through Laureate, including something called YouthActionNet, 
which has fellows on Laureate’s campuses in Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Peru, Chile, and Turkey. 26 
Becker’s company announced its YouthActionNet commitment at the CGI annual meeting in 2010. 
Bill heartily approved: “I am pleased that Laureate International Universities and the International 
Youth Foundation have partnered on this commitment to empower young social entrepreneurs to take 
on pressing challenges in their own communities and around the world.” 27 

Shortly after Bill became honorary chancellor in April 2010, Hillary made Laureate part of her 
State Department Global Partnership. In October 2010 the State Department held a gala reception on 
the twentieth anniversary of IYF’s founding. The featured speaker was Maria Otero, the 
undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs, who praised the group for “doing such 
important work.” 28 

IYF had already received financial support from USAID before Hillary became secretary of state, 
going back to 2001. 29 But the amount of its grants has exploded since Bill became chancellor of 
Laureate. According to IYF tax filings, in 2010 government grants accounted for $23 million of its 
revenue, compared to $5.4 million from other sources. It received $21 million in 2011 and $23 
million in 20 12. 30 In June 2011 IYF joined with the State Department and USAID in holding a Youth 
Partnerships Employability Conference in Washington. 31 

During Hillary’s tenure at State, IYF received USAID grants to work in Mexico, Mozambique, 
Senegal, Tanzania, the Kyrgyz Republic, Uganda, Jordan, the Caribbean, the West Bank and Gaza, 
and Algeria, and to address “good governance” issues worldwide. In 2012 it also received its first 
grant directly from the State Department: $1.9 million for work on a Middle East Partnership 

In January 2013, just before Hillary left her post as secretary of state, the International Finance 
Corporation (IFC) made a $150 million equity investment in Laureate, the first time the development 
organization had ever done so. IFC is part of the World Bank. The head of the World Bank at the time 
was Jim Kim, a Clinton friend and cofounder of Partners in Health, a partner of the Clinton 

Isn’t it troubling that while Bill Clinton was being paid by a private corporation, that corporation 
was also benefiting from State Department actions? Isn’t it troubling that an affiliate of that 
corporation is also receiving tens of millions in taxpayer money? Isn’t it troubling that this seeming 
conflict of interest was not disclosed? 

Troubling State Department conflict of interest questions hardly end here. But now let us turn the 
camera to the man behind the podium (and Foggy Bottom). 


Podium Economics 

What Was Bill Being Paid For? 

Most ex-presidents see the demand for their speechmaking decline as they move farther away from 
their time in office. The opposite applies to Bill. Indeed, during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state, 
Bill’s speechmaking activity increased and became much more profitable, particularly overseas. In a 
number of cases, these speeches were paid for by people with an interest in obtaining favors from 

Does Bill’s outsized personality and global popularity really explain his record financial success 
on the speaking circuit? We have become used to former occupants of the Oval Office making money 
in their post-presidential years. Ronald Reagan famously gave two speeches for $2 million in Tokyo 
following his retirement from office. George H. W. Bush gave lectures and joined corporate boards 
for firms like the investment giant the Carlyle Group. But no one comes close to Bill Clinton. 

The really troubling thing about Bill’s speeches is the apparent correlation between his fees and 
Hillary’s decisions during her tenure as secretary of state. The timing of the payments, the much 
higher than average size of some of them, and the subsequent actions taken by Hillary raise serious 
questions about just what those who underwrote these exorbitant fees were actually paying for. 

As noted earlier, Hillary infamously claimed she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the 
White House. So while Hillary went to the US Senate, Bill hit the lecture circuit. In 2001 he gave 
thirty- nine speeches overseas and twenty in the United States. In the following seven years, the 
Clintons pulled in a stunning $109 million. 1 

As Clinton’s presidency receded into the past, his income from speeches, especially big paydays 
from overseas speeches, declined. But when Hillary became secretary of state in 2009, those high- 
paying overseas speeches ramped up dramatically. Bill’s three best years securing speaking fees over 
$250,000 occurred while Hillary was at State. In fact, of the thirteen Clinton speeches that fetched 
$500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state. 

TD Bank, a Canadian financial institution, has paid Bill more than any other financial institution for 
lectures. More than Goldman Sachs, UBS, JPMorgan, or anyone on Wall Street. TD Bank paid Bill 
$1.8 million for ten speeches over a roughly two-and-half-year period from late 2008 to mid-2011. 
Moreover, these payments came at a crucial time, as Hillary wrestled with a controversial decision 
of enormous financial interest to the bank. 

Beginning in 2008 TransCanada Corporation sought US government approval for the $8 billion, 
1 ,660-mile-long Keystone XL pipeline, which was designed to transport 900,000 barrels a day from 
Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries in Port Arthur, Texas. 2 Because the project crossed an 
international border, authority for granting a presidential permit of approval rested with the US 
secretary of state. 3 

TD Bank had never paid Bill for a speech until the pipeline project began snaking its way through 
Washington. It was late 2008 and Keystone XL permits had just been submitted to Washington. 
Hillary had lost the Democratic nod for the White House, but she was still a powerful US senator. 
Capitol Hill Republicans were generally supportive of energy projects like Keystone XL. If there 

was going to be opposition, it would likely come from liberal Democrats. 

One of the Keystone XL pipeline’s biggest shareholders was none other than TD Bank, which held 
$1.6 billion in shares. TD Bank was also on the hook for $993 million it had loaned to TransCanada. 4 
TD Bank, in a research note, called the pipeline a “national priority” that was essential for the long- 
term health of the Canadian oil industry. 5 

There had been talk since June 2008 that Barack Obama, having sewn up the Democratic 
nomination, would pick Hillary as his secretary of state. On November 21, 2008, the New York Times 
reported that Hillary would indeed be his nominee to head up the State Department. 6 Four days later, 
on November 25 and 26, Bill was in Canada delivering his first of three speeches, for which TD 
Bank paid him $525, 000. 7 But the Clintons were only getting started. Hillary was co nfi rmed as 
secretary of state on February 21, 2009. In May Bill returned to Canada and gave three more 
speeches for another $525,000, making appearances in Halifax, St. John, and Toronto. Four months 
later, on September 13, TD Bank sponsored yet another appearance, this one for $175,000 in 
Toronto. On November 3, 2009, TD Bank paid him another $175,000 for a speech in Abu Dhabi. 8 On 
May 20, 2010, Bill spoke for another $175,000 in a speech underwritten by TD Bank, this time in 
Calgary. 9 

Many of these TD-sponsored events were “private affairs,” not open to the public or the press. 10 

At several of the speeches, Clinton was introduced or interviewed by TD Bank vice chairman 
Frank McKenna. A former Canadian politician and former ambassador to the United States, McKe nna 
is described in the Canadian press as “a good friend of both Bill and Hillary Clinton.” 11 His interest 
in the Keystone XL pipeline went beyond his role as an executive with TD Bank. McKenna also sits 
on the corporate board of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL), a heavy-oil producer that 
planned to use the pipeline to move its oil to the United States. 12 

When the pipeline project ran into rough opposition in Washington, McKenna became a vocal 
advocate. WLen President Obama decided to delay review of the project until after the 2012 
elections, McKenna questioned whether Canadians were being “screwed” by the decision. 13 

Given Hillary’s role in green-lighting the project, she naturally became the focus of intense 
lobbying efforts. In addition to suddenly throwing almost $2 million at Bill, Canadian corporations 
with an interest in the project hired several senior aides from Hillary’s presidential campaign to 
assist them in their efforts. 

The lead lobbyist for TransCanada was Paul Elliott, who had served as the deputy national 
campaign director on Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign. E-mail correspondence released through 
the FOIA reveals that US State Department officials advised TransCanada on how to build support 
for the Keystone Pipeline — even as the department was conducting its review on whether or not to 
approve it. 14 One of those communicating with Elliott was Nora Toiv, a special assistant to Hillary 

The chummy nature of the correspondence between Elliott and senior officials in the State 
Department enraged environmental groups. “I think we’ve gone way beyond bias,” said Damon 
Moglen, the director of the climate and energy program for Friends of the Earth. “We now see that the 
State Department has been complicit in this entire affair.” 15 

TransCanada certainly seems to have gotten its money’s worth from Elliott. Meanwhile the 
provincial government of Alberta, where the oil sands were located, hired another Clinton aide. 
Hilary Lefebre, who served as the director of broadcast media strategy for Hillary’s presidential 

campaign, received a $54,000 consulting fee to “blunt” criticism of the project from environmental 
groups. 16 

Environmental activists continued to accuse the State Department of failing to offer a truly 
independent review of the Keystone XL project. To offer an environmental assessment, State hired a 
company called Environmental Resources Management (ERM). But there was a problem: 
environmental activists pointed out that ERM had financial ties with TransCanada. State Department 
officials attempted to cover that fact up, redacting the biographies of the study’s authors to hide their 
previous work for TransCanada. 17 

Meanwhile, in May 2011 Bill was paid $280,000 for appearances in Fredericton and Antigonish. 18 
The Clinton speech submissions to State Department ethics officials (per the Obama administration 
memorandum of understanding described in chapter 1) didn’t indicate that TD Bank was a major 
investor in Keystone XL. Three months later, in August, the State Department released a final 
environmental impact statement that was seen as largely supportive of the pipeline. 19 

Throughout the process, Hillary remained relatively quiet. The political winds for Democrats were 
difficult. While organized labor favored the deal, environmentalists, Hollywood, and numerous high- 
dollar contributors opposed it. 20 

By late 2011 events appeared to be reaching a crescendo. As hearings commenced in Washington, 
Hillary sent word that there should be no Canadians present. “Canadian officials saw the request as a 
suggestion that Ms. Clinton supported the project, and didn’t want a Canadian presence to further 
disturb the peace.” 21 And there was muted evidence that Hillary was quietly pushing the deal through. 
At an appearance at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, she had been asked about energy 
policy in general and the Keystone XL pipeline in particular. While explaining that she had not yet 
decided whether to approve the project, Hillary declared, “we are inclined to do so, and we are for 
several reasons.” She touted the project on the grounds of “energy security.” “We’re either going to 
be dependent on dirty oil from the [Persian] Gulf or dirty oil from Canada,” she said, leaving the 
audience with the impression that she favored the latter. 22 

\bcal opposition continued to mount, as President Obama came under increasing pressure from 
environmentalists. During an October 26 speech, Obama was heckled about the pipeline. “I know 
your deep concern about [Keystone XL],” he said. “We will address it.” In a series of interviews 
with local media outlets through the Midwest, where the pipeline was supposed to run, he was 
pressed on the issue. 23 After officials in Nebraska demanded that the pipeline be rerouted to avoid 
sensitive environmental areas, President Obama decided to delay approval of the project. 24 

In late February 2012 Bill finally issued his statement of support for the project at (of all places) a 
Department of Energy conference for clean technology start-ups. With a group of bureaucrats and 
green-energy investors looking on, Bill told the crowd in Maryland that America should “embrace” 
the pipeline. 25 Later the same afternoon, Hillary was at the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs 
Committee hearing, discussing the pipeline. Naturally, she was asked about her husband’s remarks. 

“He’s a very smart man,” she responded, causing a smattering of chuckles in the crowd. For 
Canadians, this was another hopeful sign. As the Canadian press put it, “Bill Clinton’s comments will 
almost certainly cause a stir given his wife has already been accused of a pro-pipeline bias by the sea 
of American environmentalists who oppose Keystone XL.” 26 

Obama’s edict that the pipeline issue not be settled until after the 2012 elections effectively sealed 
its fate, at least as it related to Hillary’s ability to get it approved. By January 2013 she was gone 
from Foggy Bottom. 

Since she left office, Hillary has used the fact that because she was involved in the process, she 
can’t talk about her views on the Keystone Pipeline. As she told one crowd, “I’ve said before in 
Canada as I’ve traveled around your country avoiding answering questions about the Keystone 
pipeline because I really can’t, having been part of the process.” So her involvement prevents her 
from talking about Keystone, but it didn’t prevent her husband from making millions from its largest 
shareholder. 29 As Charles Calomiris, a professor of financial institutions at the Columbia University 
Graduate School of Business, explains, the speeches were not really about speeches. What they really 
wanted was to buy Hillary’s goodwill by paying Bill. “I’m not sure it would matter if those speeches 
had taken place in Clinton’s bathtub,” he said. “What matters is that they paid him.” 30 

Wwi e much of the media attention to Clinton’s speaking has focused on his fees from Wall Street 
and pharmaceutical companies, it has been the outsized payments from overseas that have really 
brought in the money. In 2011 Bill Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for giving fifty- four 
speeches. 31 But of those speeches paying $250,000 or more, nearly 40 percent, or $5.1 million of 
those fees, came from just eleven speeches given outside the United States. Overall, these mega- 
paying speeches for over $250,000 generated nearly $40 million in income for the Clintons from 
2001 to 2013. 

In short, Bill Clinton’s best years — with much higher than average fees being consistently paid by 
foreign entities — occurred while his wife was at the pinnacle of her power as secretary of state, a 
perch with enormous influence over issues that directly affected foreign governments. 

A few examples make the point. 

Beginning in 2009, the Swedish telecom giant Ericsson came under US pressure for selling telecom 
equipment to oppressive governments, some of which used those technologies to monitor and control 
their own people. In late 2010 the SEC sent a letter to Ericsson about sales to countries that were 
considered state sponsors of terrorism by Hillary’s State Department. 32 The regimes included Sudan 
and Syria, where Ericsson sold and maintained telephone- switching equipment, and Iran, where it 
was selling “commercial grade systems to public network operators for mobile communications.” 33 

Hillary was a well-known hawk on Iran and used economic tools against regimes that were 
considered sponsors of terrorism. According to US diplomatic cables, State Department officials 
were “regularly and increasingly” raising these transactions involving Ericsson with the Swedish 
foreign minister. 34 

In April 2011 Ericsson was named in a State Department report for supplying telecom equipment 
for the oppressive regime in Belarus. 35 Separately, on Capitol Hill pressure was mounting and a bill 
would later be introduced in December 2011 in the House of Representatives to “stop the sale of 
surveillance technologies to repressive regimes.” 36 In June 2011 the State Department started 
drawing up a list of which goods and services might be covered under expanded sanctions on Iran 
and other state sponsors of terrorism. 37 

Meanwhile, Ericsson decided to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton and paid him more than he had 
ever been paid for a single speech: $750,000. According to Clinton financial disclosures, in the 
previous ten years Ericsson had never sponsored a Clinton speech. But now it apparently thought 
would be a good time to do so. 

On November 12,2011, Bill appeared at a telecom conference in Hong Kong and talked in general 

terms about the role that telecom plays in our lives. One week later, on November 19, the State 
Department unveiled its new sanctions list for Iran. Telecom was not on the list. 38 

On December 8, Hillary discussed the issue of telecom companies and their sales to repressive 
regimes for the first time since Bill’s speech. She argued that companies like Ericsson needed to 

make “good decisions” about whom they do business with but proposed no further action. 39 

In April 2012, President Obama signed an executive order imposing sanctions on telecom sales to 
Iran and Syria. But those sanctions did not cover Ericsson’s work in Iran. The Swedish company said 
that it was planning to scale down its work in the country because of public pressure, but internal 
documents obtained by Reuters found that the company planned to honor existing contracts in Iran. 40 

In 2011 much of the Arab world was in upheaval, dealing with the aftermath of the Arab Spring, 
which had sparked widespread protests across the region. In Egypt and Tunisia, large crowds took to 
the streets and demanded political change. Many of these protests turned violent. 41 Even countries 
considered relatively stable, including Bahrain and Yemen, were dealing with violent upheavals 42 

The events left small but wealthy countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) feeling very 
vulnerable. The UAE was being pressured by the United States to tighten its grip on economic ties 
with Iran. 43 In May two oil and shipping companies faced sanctions for their trade with Iran. On June 
20, 2011, the Obama administration designated six UAE-based shipping firms for sanctions over their 
business dealings with Iran 44 Three days later, the United States charged several other parties in the 
UAE with trading parts for fighter jets and attack helicopters to Iran. 45 

The UAE was in a precarious situation because it feared the Iranian regime. But it feared 
something perhaps even more: being abandoned by the United States. In a secret State Department 
cable, the crown prince said his country was “being left out of our [US] Iran sanctions consultations.” 
He explained to a visiting congressional delegation that the royal family was “left wondering what 
will happen to them in any deal the US and Iran reach through back-channel conversations.” 46 

Amid this uncertainty, the royal family decided to pay Bill Clinton $500,000 to come and speak in 
Abu Dhabi. 47 Bill arrived in Abu Dhabi and stayed at the Emirates Palace hotel. 48 

His speech was on collecting environmental data. “The lack of environmental data hurts,” he said. 
“On top of all environmental issues, the financial crisis is making the world’s stability even worse. 
The only way out, though, is a green economy.” 49 

What is striking about the speech is not what Clinton said but the timing of the payment. Even as 
Bill was being introduced to the audience by the crown prince of the UAE, the prince’s brother (the 
foreign minister) was en route to Washington for meetings with none other than Hillary. Sheikh 
Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan arrived in Washington on December 12 and met Hillary the day after 
Bill collected his half million. Based on the Clintons’ financial disclosures, it does not appear that 
the UAE royal family had ever paid for a Clinton speech before. 50 

This was not the first time Bill collected large checks for speeches paid by foreign governments, 
such as Thailand and Turkey. 51 It certainly wouldn’t be the last. 

The year 2010 was a tense time for US-Chinese relations. The problems were piling up: the Chinese 

government reduced its military ties with the Pentagon following US arms sales to Taiwan; Google 
disclosed that it had been a victim of a Chinese cyber assault; Barack Obama hosted the Dalai Lama 
in Washington amidst public outcries in Beijing; relations grew stiff when officials disagreed on 
trade issues and China’s alleged manipulation of its currency Meanwhile, China was flexing its 
military muscle, sending a submarine to the bottom of the South China Sea where it planted a Chinese 
flag on the ocean floor to signify China’s claim to the mineral-rich area. 

At the center of US policy toward China was Hillary Clinton, who was the architect of the Obama 
administration’s strategic “pivot” to Asia. 

At this critical time for US-Chinese relations, Bill Clinton gave a number of speeches that were 
underwritten by the Chinese government and its supporters. That might not be apparent if you look at 
the Clintons’ public financial disclosures. For example, on October 21, 2011, Bill gave a speech 
before something called the Silicon Valley Information Business Alliance in Santa Clara, California. 
But who underwrote the speech? According to correspondence between Bill’s office and the State 
Department, the cosponsors were a coalition of Chinese government entities and organizations. Bill 
received $200,000 for the speech (well above his average for speaking in the United States) and the 
sponsors were the China Electronic Commerce Association (an entity launched and chaired by an 
official from the Chinese Ministry of Information Industry); 52 the Suzhou People’s government (a 
municipality around Shanghai); the China Association of Science and Technology Industry Parks (this 
third sponsor sounds pretty innocuous, but it is a government- run entity in China); and the California 
State Friendship Committee, a small California-based organization designed to foster US-Chinese 
relations. 53 

There were no clear guidelines about what was and what wasn’t permissible. After the speech in 
California, Bill Clinton’s office contacted the State Department and sought approval for a speech 
sponsored by the Shanghai Airport Authority (SAA). Note the flexibility and lack of understanding 
that it had already approved the speech in California when the State Department wrote back, “[Your 
correspondence] states that the Shanghai Airport Authority, a state-owned enterprise, would be a 
‘title sponsor only.’ Does this mean that SAA is not contributing any funds to pay for President 
Clinton’s fees? I don’t believe we’ve previously cleared acceptance of fees from PRC-linked 
entities, but could consider this variation.” 

The State Department Ethics Office was willing to “consider” a “variation” on guidelines, they 
wrote to Clinton’s office. Ultimately Clinton declined the speech. His office said there was a 
scheduling problem. 

Bill also took a $550,000 payment for an appearance in Shanghai at something called the Huatuo 
CEO forum, underwritten by Chinese billionaire Yan Jiehe, a man described as “China’s baddest 
billionaire builder.” Yan has become wealthy in part through large government construction contracts. 
His company is perhaps most famous in China for lopping off and flattening seven hundred 
mountaintops for a construction project. (Yan says, in defense, the number wasn’t quite that high.) 54 
Yan, who calls Clinton a “close friend,” is an outspoken Chinese nationalist, explaining that foreign 
countries must “not look down on China. ... I understand that my country, my nation, China is the 
greatest in history.” 55 

Prior to Hillary’s appointment as secretary of state, Bill had given only two speeches on the 
Chinese mainland, for a total of $450,000. 

After Hillary’s appointment, the Clintons promised both the incoming Obama White House and the 
US Senate that his speeches and business ties would be vetted by the State Department Ethics Office, 
as described in chapter 1 . 

This approach was doomed to fail, because the disclosures to be made were not required to 
indicate anything other than the name of the donor, certainly not investments or what business they 
might have with the State Department. An examination of the communication between Bill’s office 
and State Department ethics officers, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOLA), indicates that Bill Clinton’s office never provided anything but a cursory 
description of who was paying for each speech. TD Bank’s ties to the Keystone Pipeline, for 
example, were never disclosed. Ericsson, in the correspondence concerning that speech, is simply 
described as a “world-leading provider of telecommunications equipment.” No mention is made of 
its tangles with the State Department at the time. And the department green-lighted 215 speechmaking 
arrangements as not posing conflicts of interest. 56 

For the ethics officers replying to the Clinton requests, the emphasis was on a speedy response. 
And then there was the intimidation factor: they were vetting speeches being done by the spouse of 
their ultimate boss. And the spouse happened to be a former president. For good measure, all 
correspondence pertaining to Bill’s speeches between his office and the ethics office was copied to 
Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s chief of staff and Bill’s longtime friend. 57 And who ran the ethics office at the 
time? That would be the State Department legal adviser, Harold Koh, who had previously been 
appointed by President Clinton as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and 
labor. 58 

Speaking of ethics problems, some of Bill’s largest paydays for speaking fees have come from 
scandal-plagued Nigeria. As we will learn in the next chapter, the Clinton financial ties to the 
continent of Africa run deep, and often include those with troubling reputations and rich histories of 


Warlord Economics 

The Clintons Do Africa 

It was an unusually hot July in 2009 when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton landed in Kinshasa, the 
sprawling capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The DRC (previously named Zaire) 
had for decades been a house of horrors. Ruled by corrupt dictators, populated by child soldiers, 
plagued by tribal fighting, and suffering from invasions by neighboring countries, few places on earth 
are more hellish than the DRC. 

As a senator, Hillary had taken the lead in rooting out DRC corruption and violence. In 2006 she 
was one of the first to sign on as a cosponsor of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, 
Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006 — one of only twelve cosponsors in the Senate. The 
legislation — which was authored by then senator Barack Obama — included provisions on human 
rights, corruption, and sexual violence. It also addressed the issue of conflict minerals, the illicit 
trade in valuable minerals that fuel much of the country’s violence. The bill had teeth, giving the US 
secretary of state real power and authority to combat the country’s problems. The bill was passed by 
the Senate and House, and President George W. Bush signed it into law. 1 

Hillary was also a vocal supporter of the Enough Project, an initiative launched by the liberal 
Center for American Progress. The project called for an international certification system that would 
require DRC mining companies and end users to account for their minerals’ origins. A similar 
program had been established several years earlier for the diamond trade. Soon after Hillary arrived 
in Kinshasa, former NBA star Dikembe Mutombo, who was from Congo, took her on a tour of a 
hospital built in honor of his late mother. Mutombo worked with both the Clinton Foundation and the 
Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) on projects in the region. 2 

Hillary spoke with students about her commitment to helping Congo turn things around. “We know 
that the promise of the DRC is limitless,” she told them. “We will help you build a strong, civilian- 
led government that is accountable and transparent.” From Kinshasa she hopped aboard a UN plane 
(her US aircraft was too big) to visit President Joseph Kabila in the eastern city of Goma. There she 
talked about efforts to reduce the rapes and sexual violence that had terrorized the population. She 
talked about the lucrative mining trade in the country, too. “I am particularly concerned about the 
exploitation of natural resources, like the mining and the timber, where the resources do nothing to 
help the people of this country,” she said in front of the international media. 3 

Her words were strong. But her actions during her tenure as secretary of state came nowhere near 
the positions she had taken while in the US Senate. As one scholar from Johns Hopkins University put 
it, the law she had cosponsored was “never implemented” by Secretary of State Clinton. 4 
Furthermore, in 20 11 the DRC government held national elections that were widely condemned. But 
the State Department showed little interest in trying to remedy them When the Congolese government 
changed its constitution midelection in favor of President Kabila, the State Department called it an 
“internal affair.” When the United Nations Group of Experts linked Congolese militia groups to the 
neighboring government in Rwanda, it was proof of Rwanda’s military intervention into Congo that 
had contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Some have asserted that Hillary’s State 

Department sought to block or delay the publication of the damning portion of the investigation and 
“quietly” asked Rwanda to stop its support for the rebellion. 5 

What happened between 2006, when Hillary took those strong positions, and 2009, when she 
became secretary of state? Did she change her position? And if so, why? We can’t ultimately know 
why she carried out the policies that she did, but we can notice where changes in policies conformed 
with the interests of Clinton Foundation large donors. 

O n January 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton sat on a gold-colored sofa in her Washington, DC, home and 
announced via the Internet that she was forming an exploratory committee and filing with the Federal 
Election Commission (FEC) to seek the presidency. “I’m in,” Hillary declared. “And I’m in to win.” 6 

Poll numbers gave her reason to be confident. With George W. Bush’s poll numbers in a free fall, 
there was a sinking feeling in Republican circles that the GOP would have a hard time keeping the 
White House. And among Democrats, Hillary was the early front-runner. 

Pundits, pollsters, and the American public were not the only ones paying attention. Hillary’s 
announcement, in the weeks and months to follow, sent a cascade of foreign dollars flowing into the 
Clinton Foundation and into the Clintons’ own pockets. Significant funds came from foreign investors 
with massive investments in troubled corners of the world. Securing access to African business 
opportunities had often required paying bribes to government officials. Now these investors were 
looking for access and political cover at the highest levels of power in Washington. 

A few months after Hillary’s presidential announcement, on July 6, 2007, the Clinton Foundation 
announced that a reclusive Swedish mining investor named Lukas Lundin was committing $100 
million through a charity called Lundin for Africa. According to the announcement, “the Lundin for 
Africa commitment will be aimed, in large part, at approved projects in Africa, where the Lundin 
Group has significant mining, oil, and gas interests.” 7 Lundin lived in Vancouver, Canada, and used a 
series of offshore trusts to manage his business affairs. A friend of Frank Giustra, Lundin was the 
head of a sprawling enterprise that cut deals with African warlords and dictators to gain access to 
valuable minerals and oil. As one longtime observer put it, the company “pursued a strategy of 
operating in countries under sanctions” and “building assets in countries such as Libya, Iran, and 

Sudan, where many other competitors were unable to operate.” 8 

This kind of business could be enormously profitable if you were willing to look the other way on 
corruption and human rights. But the strategy also posed enormous risks. By 2007, when he made his 
commitment to the Clinton Foundation, his company was under considerable political and legal heat 
in the United States and Europe for some of its business dealings. The Lundin Group was one of only 
two Western oil companies drilling in the Sudan, which was not only the focus of media attention for 
massive human rights violations but was also on the US State Department’s list of terrorism- 
sponsoring nations. Human rights activists were pushing for pension funds to divest stock in the 
company. Even more troubling, the Lundin Group was under investigation by the International 
Prosecution Chamber in Stockholm for complicity in “war crimes and crimes against humanity.” (In 
2012, the chief prosecutor decided not to press charges.) 9 In announcing the donation to the Clinton 
Foundation, the family’s spokesman explained, “This is not to soothe a bad conscience but we want a 
positive impact in countries in Africa where mining is conducted.” 10 

That may be true, but it does not explain why the Clinton Foundation saw fit to accept such a large 
contribution from such a questionable source. 

The Lundin Companies were founded by Lukas’ s father, Adolph, who had made a lot of cash 
mining in apartheid South Africa after the United Nations applied international sanctions. While other 
companies had fled the country in the face of international pressure, Lundin stayed. When Adolph 
died in 2006, Lukas continued where his father left off, working in the darker corners of Africa, 
where few companies ventured. The Africa Oil Corporation, in which they owned a controlling 
share, was active in Ethiopia’s Rift Valley, a region run by a corrupt dictatorial regime. Lundin also 
had a spin-off called Horn Petroleum that was drilling in Somalia even though the government there 
collapsed in 1990 and the country was essentially run by warlords. 11 Lukas Lundin was also 
chairman of a company called NGEx Resources that was mining in Eritrea, a region that was 
attempting to break away from Ethiopia. 12 The company also had a heavy stake in gold mining 
operations in Mauritania and Ghana. 13 

But perhaps the most lucrative mining operations in the Lundin portfolio were in the war-torn 
DRC, which has known more death, corruption, and fighting than perhaps any other area of Africa. 

The Lundins got their foot in the door by striking a bargain with a Marxist warlord. In early 1997 
the Congolese rebel leader Laurent Kabila, who had once worked with Che Guevara, was in the 
middle of a campaign to overthrow Mobutu Sese Seko, the country’s longtime strongman ruler. To 
finance his rebel campaign, he sent a representative to Canada to talk to mining companies about 
“investment opportunities.” His proposal was simple: give me money and I will give you lucrative 
mining rights in my country once I seize power. One of the first to bite was the Lundin family, which 
signed an agreement with the rebels and provided them with most of the funds they needed to march 
into the capital. The Lundins reportedly paid $50 million to Kabila’s “finance minister,” the first 
installment of $250 million they would give to the rebels. The rebels wanted cash and by all accounts 
didn’t know what they were doing. Kabila’s minister of mines, Kambale Mututulo, had never seen 
one. “He asked us to send him some books on how to run one,” noted one executive who met with 
him. 14 

For the Lundins, this was an enormously lucrative opportunity. “There are moments in the history 
of mining when you can make deals like this under excellent terms,” said Adolph Lundin at the time. 15 

By the time Lukas Lundin made his $100 million pledge to the Clinton Foundation, the Congo 
operation was making the company “staggering profits.” 16 But for the profits to remain staggering, US 
policy needed to remain unchanged. The 2006 Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion 
Act, which Hillary had cosponsored, placed those investments at serious risk, because they 
threatened to overturn the political leadership in the country. What benefited Lundin was the status 
quo in Congo. That status quo was preserved by Hillary’s disappointing failure as secretary of state 
to implement any of the key provisions in the law that she had strongly advocated only a few years 
earlier — before Lundin made his contribution. According to a July 2012 article in Foreign Policy, the 
law had real teeth and empowered the secretary of state to intervene in a number of important ways. 
Yet for reasons unknown, Hillary chose not to do so. 

This failure to act could at best be described as a sin of omission — though it is a sin compounded 
by her many promises as a senator to bring real change to the DRC. But Hillary was apparently 
willing to intervene directly when other well-connected mining companies saw their interests 
threatened, including foreign mining companies she had no real reason to support. In 2009 a DRC 
government commission claimed that a Canadian company called First Quantum Minerals Ltd. had 
won a lucrative concession for a Lonshi mine (worth $1 billion Canadian) through questionable 
methods. According to the commission, First Quantum won the Lonshi concession without any 

competitive bidding. The company had allegedly offered “cash payments and shares” to some 
government officials to get it. DRC officials wanted to cancel the contract and suspend the company’s 
license. But according to Le Monde Diplomatique , a prominent French publication, Hillary 
intervened and tried to pressure the government to restore the company’s license. In January 2012 
First Quantum received $1.25 billion for its Congolese assets. 17 

Why did the US State Department seek to intervene for a Canadian company doing business in the 
DRC, especially when 90 percent of the mine’s yield ended up in China? We do not know. But it is 
certainly worth noting that First Quantum was founded by Canadian businessman Jean-Raymond 
Boulle, a longtime Clinton friend and benefactor. It was Boulle who had put together the diamond 
deal in Arkansas back in the 1980s when Bill was governor. Hillary wore one of his diamonds to the 
Clinton inaugural ball. 

But Boulle was not the only Clinton donor or ally who was seeking to exploit the DRC’s vast 
mineral wealth. 

Former NBA star Dikembe Mutombo has worked with the Clinton Global Initiative as a partner 
and was appointed by Hillary to the State Department’s Young African Leaders Initiative in 2010. In 
October 2011 he was a member of an official State Department delegation to Sudan. The following 
month he joined forces with a Hillary presidential campaign bundler named Kase Lawal on a $10 
million venture to transport 4.5 tons of gold out of the Democratic Republic of Congo. 18 According to 
a UN report, the deal involved some of the most notorious war criminals on the planet, including 
“individuals operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and committing serious violations of 
international law involving the targeting of children or women.” 19 

Lawal, a Nigerian and devout Muslim who lived in Houston, was the head of CAMAC, an energy 
company that did considerable business in Nigeria. He also had a long history with the Clintons. In 
the 1990s, Bill had appointed Lawal to his Trade Advisory Committee on Africa. 20 When Bill visited 
Africa in 1998 as president, Lawal accompanied him. Lawal’s CAMAC featured on its board former 
Clinton energy secretary Hazel O’Leary and former Clinton senior White House official Dr. Lee 
Patrick Brown. 21 

According to a 2012 report in the Atlantic Monthly , Lawal leased a Gulfstream V jet from Dallas- 
based Southlake Aviation and sent his half brother Mickey Lawal (vice president of CAMAC), along 
with Reagan Mutombo (Dikembe’s nephew) and employees from his company, to Africa to secure the 
prize. Also involved was a Texas-based diamond trader named Carlos St. Mary. If all went well, the 
expected profit was a quick $20 million. 22 

All did not go well. The Gulfstream ended up in Goma, Congo. The man they were dealing with to 
secure the gold was a notorious warlord named Bosco Ntaganda. There are plenty of nefarious 
criminal leaders in Africa, but Ntaganda belongs near the top of the list. The International Criminal 
Court indicted him in 2006 for using child soldiers. He was also categorized as a sanctioned 
individual on the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control list. The consequences: 
US citizens doing business with him faced the possibility of up to twenty years in prison. 

As text messages obtained by UN investigators make clear, Kase Lawal knew he was dealing with 
the notorious Ntaganda. And from the beginning he knew that the gold was from the DRC. To combat 
the export of gold by warlords and criminal bans, the DRC government banned unregulated exports of 
gold out of the country. 23 Lawal denied any involvement in illegal activities. 

The “delegation” from Lawal and Mutombo transferred $5 million of the cash and awaited their 
gold. But then DRC customs officials seized the Gulfstream and arrested everyone onboard. 24 

The owner of the leased jet, David Disiere, got a call in the dead of night informing him that the 
$43 million jet was loaded with ten boxes of gold but was now being held by authorities in Goma. 
Detained by Congo authorities for the violation of several laws, Lawal and Mutombo contacted the 
State Department to get them released. As the Texas diamond trader St. Mary described it later in a 
legal deposition, “He [Mutombo] said that ... he had lobbied a lot on our behalf with Washington, 
D.C. and he indicated that — that Kase was quite impressed with his ability — his ability to lobby at 
the U.S. State Department on our behalf and was surprised at the number of people that he knew 
because he was the former ambassador to the Congo under Clinton’s administration.” 25 

They were released from jail following State Department intervention. No one involved has faced 
criminal charges in the United States. 

JVIean while, at the same time that Lukas Lundin made his $100 million commitment to the Clinton 
Foundation, another major foreign investor with much at stake in Africa was doing the same thing. 

Less than three months after Hillary announced her presidential bid, Bill was in London for a 
meeting with a reclusive Saudi sheikh named Mohammed al-Amoudi. Amoudi was the head of a 
sprawling conglomerate called the Mohammed International Development Research and Organization 
Companies (MIDROC), which had extensive interests in Ethiopia including mines, agriculture, hotels, 
hospitals, steel, and cement. 26 

Born in Ethiopia to an Ethiopian mother and a Yemeni father, Amoudi grew up in Saudi Arabia and 
became the kingdom’s second richest man. 27 Much of his wealth derived from his close relationship 
with Ethiopia’s repressive government, which sold him government assets — mines, concessions, and 
land — for deeply discounted prices. An enormous amount of his wealth was tied up with that 
government and he took acts likely aimed at helping it stay in power. 28 

On May 14, 2007, in a small ceremony, the sheikh announced that he was committing $20 million 
to the Clinton Foundation. He started things off with a check for $2 million. 29 

Amoudi was familiar with the money ways of Washington. His lobbying firm in Washington 
included Senators George Mitchell, Lloyd Bentsen (who had been treasury secretary when Bill was 
president), and Bob Dole as paid advisers. 30 

In May 2007, when he made his commitment to the Clinton Foundation, the Ethiopia Democracy 
and Accountability Act (H.R. 2003) had just been introduced by Congressman Donald Payne. The bill 
quickly acquired eighty-five cosponsors in the House and passed on October 2, 2007. The United 
States was sending hundreds of millions in taxpayer money to Ethiopia every year: the bill called for 
tying that aid directly to progress on human rights. For Amoudi ’s interests, a bill pressuring the 
regime that had given him so much to reform would be a disaster. Amoudi ’s business interests were 
protected by the ruling regime in Ethiopia. Indeed, some of his businesses had been purchased at 
bargain-basement prices during the privatization of government assets. A democratic election 
bringing in new leadership would put them at risk. 

As the bill moved to the US Senate, many looked to see where Senator Clinton would come down. 
After all, she was the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination at the time and 
chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

An Ethiopian human rights organization sent a letter in 2009 to former president Clinton at the 
Clinton Foundation warning that the donation was an attempt to i nfl uence US policy toward Ethiopia. 
“We have reason to believe that the huge donation to the Clinton Foundation was made on behalf of 

the Ethiopian government. . . . Although we believe in philanthropy, there is something troubling with 
this picture. By all accounts, Sheikh Amoudi, the owner of Ethiopia’s famous Sheraton Hotel, is not 
known for much philanthropy.” 

The letter, a copy of which was also sent to Hillary at the State Department, further noted what 
observers in other countries had seen. “Local AIDS organizations that appealed to the billionaire 
[Amoudi] for paltry sums were turned down,” the Ethiopians wrote to Clinton. “So why would a 
wealthy man from one of the poorest countries in the world say no to organizations in his country and 
yet easily cough up $20 million for an American organization 10,000 miles away? Is this just a 
coincidence that the donation was made at the start of U.S. presidential elections?” 31 

The letter also asserted that the Clinton Foundation had a close working relationship with the 
oppressive government. “The work of the Clinton Foundation in Ethiopia is loosely intertwined with 
government operations. We urge you to go beyond the government and to seek out independent 
community organizations that are closely working with the poor.” 32 

Neither Bill nor the foundation ever responded. Instead, as we will see, when Hillary became 
secretary of state, Amoudi’s companies received special benefits from the US State Department, 
including taxpayer funds. 

Much of Amoudi’s wealth came from his relationship with Ethiopia’s longtime dictator, Meles 
Zenawi. A diminutive man with a goatee and arched eyebrows, Zenawi had joined a rebel group 
fighting the Marxist Mengistu regime. He quickly rose through the ranks. When they seized power in 
1991, Zenawi was thirty-six and became head of the country. 33 

It is hard to overstate how closely Amoudi’s wealth was tied to Zenawi ’s rule in Ethiopia. (When 
Zenawi died in 2012 of a mysterious stomach ailment, Amoudi would say, “I lost my right hand.”) 34 
Amoudi had been able to buy 70 percent of Ethiopia’s National Oil Corporation from the government. 
One of the sheikh’s companies, Saudi Star, was given leases on tens of thousands of acres of 
Ethiopian land. 35 The sheikh controls Ethiopia’s steel production and is the country’s exclusive gold 
exporter, with one of his mines (also purchased from the government) producing more than ten 
thousand pounds of gold and silver per year. 36 

Zenawi ’s policies pushed local people off their lands, decimated forests, and encroached on game 
reserves. 37 The list of his offenses is immense, reported Britain’s prestigious The Lancet, including 
politically manipulating the foreign aid the United States and other countries provide: “badly needed 
food and agricultural aid that had been given by foreign donors was being denied to hungry village 
communities not allied with the ruling party.” 38 

Zenawi was a shrewd technocrat known for “imprisoning his political opponents, withholding 
development assistance from restive areas, stealing elections, and cracking down on civil society 
NGOs.” He sentenced journalists (including two Europeans) to lengthy jail terms. As The Atlantic put 
it, “From a human rights perspective, Zenawi’s rule has been abusive, heavy-handed, and self- 
interested.” 39 

On the plus side, under his rule Ethiopia also experienced rapid economic growth. And it was this 
economic growth that had led Bill Clinton to praise him as part of a “‘new generation’ of African 
leaders.” 40 Zenawi’s ability to curry favor with some in the West while being a brutal dictator at 
home led one observer to note, “He was a charmer in Geneva and London. He was a stern, even 
brutal, autocrat at home.” 41 

Despite his mixed record, many in the West — including the Clintons — embraced and legitimized 
him. According to a leaked State Department cable, in 2007, on his way to attend the G20 summit in 

Pittsburgh, Zenawi was invited to attend Clinton Foundation events in New York. 42 

When Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in January 2009, Ethiopian officials interacted 
confidently with US diplomats. Despite public statements coming from Washington about promoting 
human rights in Ethiopia and Africa, Ethiopian officials remained unfazed. In February 2010 Hillary’s 
undersecretary of state, Maria Otero, met with the dictator and raised questions about the plight and 
arrest of an opposition figure named Birtukan Midekssa. Zenawi told her that Midekssa will 
“vegetate in jail, forever,” according to leaked State Department cables obtained through WikiLeaks. 
As far as opposition groups were concerned, he said, “we will crush them with our full force.” 43 

It was a shocking display of disrespect, given that the United States was sending his government 
half a billion dollars a year. As Foreign Affairs put it, “Washington has expressed its concern about 
these issues to the Ethiopian government, and the Ethiopian government has reacted not only 
negatively but also insultingly — despite receiving $533 million in U.S. assistance in fiscal year 
20 10.” 44 

Zenawi aggressively went after not only domestic political opponents but also American 
organizations, like the US Chamber of Commerce and Jimmy Carter’s Carter Center, that were 
working in the country. According to another WikiLeaks State Department cable, diplomats raised 
concerns with Zenawi about his new policy requiring organizations like the US Chamber of 
Commerce and the Carter Center to seek government approval to use US money sent from the United 
States in Ethiopia. Zenawi said as far as the Carter Center was concerned, “Maybe we are better off 
if they do not come.” He was equally dismissive when diplomats raised questions about how the 
government restricted access to Western food aid in certain regions for political reasons. 45 

In 2012 Ethiopia was among the top sub-Saharan African recipients of US aid, with $707 million 
in planned aid. As secretary of state, Hillary was required to evaluate whether countries receiving 
American aid were transparent in how the money was spent. “The Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriation Act prohibits U.S. assistance to the central 
government of any country that does not meet minimum standards of fiscal transparency.” Unless, that 
is, Hillary decided to grant the country a waiver. 46 

State Department officials determined that Ethiopia failed to meet the transparency requirement. 
According to leaked cables from the embassy, 

Ethiopia does not, however, have specific laws or regulations governing the public disclosure of revenues and expenditures in 
national budgets. There are no independent auditors of government budget data, so information is taken at face value. International 
econo mis ts generally focus their criticism on the number of extra-budgetary items that are omitted from the national budget. 
Notably, the national budget does not include over 100 state-owned enterprises or the over 70 “endowment” companies owned by 
the ruling political party. 

The list of offenses continued and concluded by noting, “In the past year, there have not been any 
events that affected Ethiopia’s budget transparency and the Government of Ethiopia has not made any 
steps towards improving its fiscal transparency.” When US diplomats asked the Ethiopian minister of 
finance about the national budget, he “maintained that he does not have access” to complete books 
either. Diplomats raised the “message to GOE [Government of Ethiopia] officials regarding 
Ethiopia’s need to comply with USG [US government] fiscal transparency guidelines; however, this 
message has fallen on deaf ears and only seems to aggravate relations.” 47 

Despite the lack of compliance and the apparent lack of interest in moving toward transparency, 
Hillary granted the government of Ethiopia a waiver, which allowed it to avoid transparency 

requirements. 48 

Someone who has directly benefited from US assistance to Ethiopia is Sheikh Amoudi. Amoudi 
owned Ethiopia’s Dashen Bank, which he used to finance his other companies and projects. 
According to Dashen’s annual reports, the bank reaps financial reward through the USAID’s 
Development Credit Authority, which is funded by US taxpayers and provides Ethiopian loan 
guarantees. 49 The USAID also brokered a long-term contract in November 2009 specifically for 
Almeda Textiles (which is owned by Amoudi) to import textiles into the United States. 50 

When Hillary was appointed secretary of state, she brought in a group of advisers to shape 
American policy toward Africa. But two individuals largely responsible for forming it didn’t have a 
direct portfolio at State. Husband Bill was considered to be Hillary’s closest Africa adviser. He had 
good contacts with several African presidents and traveled there regularly. 51 

The other key unofficial adviser was former ambassador Joe Wilson, regarded as Hillary’s “grey 
eminence for Africa.” 52 Wilson had served as ambassador to several countries in Africa. In 1997 he 
was appointed special assistant to President Clinton and senior director for African affairs in the 
White House. Wilson had the responsibility to “plan and execute” then president Bill Clinton’s first 
trip to Africa, which supposedly raised his consciousness concerning the continent. 53 

Wilson is perhaps most famous for the role he played in a controversy involving his wife, Valerie 
Plame, a former CIA agent who had been outed by officials in the Bush administration. Wilson 
charged that this was an intentional act of retaliation against him for debunking the administration’s 
claims about Saddam Hussein’s seeking yellowcake uranium in Africa. It later turned out that the leak 
of Plame’s identity came from the State Department, not the White House. Nevertheless, husband and 
wife made something of a career out of the episode: Plame published a book about her experience, 
which in turn became a movie starring Sean Penn and Naomi Watts. Wilson’s claims about the 
yellowcake uranium were later debunked by the Senate Intelligence Committee. 54 

Wilson was close to the Clintons. “He was very active with the Hillary Clinton [presidential] 
campaign,” his wife noted. Wilson penned articles declaring that in contrast with then senator Obama, 
Hillary had real-world diplomatic experience. On the campaign trail in Portland, Oregon, in April 
2008, he said that Hillary was “easily the better candidate.” Joe Wilson also traveled with Bill 
Clinton to Africa as part of a Clinton Foundation delegation. 55 

Once Hillary was nominated for secretary of state, many believed she wanted to appoint Wilson to 
a senior State Department post for African affairs. But the reality of facing a difficult Senate 
confirmation deterred her. Many Republicans strongly disliked him. Still, Wilson was a strong 
presence at the State Department despite his lack of an official post. “Wilson’s presence in the wings 
is still strongly felt and the future incumbent in this post will constantly have him under their feet,” 
noted one African business publication. 56 

In January 2007 Wilson became vice chairman of a New York-based investment firm called Jarch 
Capital. 57 A holding company focused on natural resources like oil, uranium, and gold, it specialized 
in cutting deals in countries where it expected “sovereignty changes.” That’s a nice way of saying 
countries that are at war. 58 

“Ambassador Wilson will be instrumental in the growth of Jarch as it expands in Africa, 
sometimes in politically sensitive areas,” noted the company in a press release. In other words, like 

Adolph Lundin did in Congo, Jarch would be striking deals with warlords fighting local governments, 
hoping to cash in when power changed hands. (As Jarch founder Philippe Heilberg, a former Wall 
Street banker, explained his strategy of cutting deals with warlords, “You have to go to the guns, this 
is Africa.”) 59 

The venture was clearly off the grid as far as the Bush State Department was concerned. As 
Harper’s quoted a knowledgeable observer in 2007, “The State Department isn’t supportive of 
Jarch’s involvement because it knows that once Americans go after oil in the south any hope of a 
national unity government collapses.” 60 

But Jarch Capital pressed on anyway. Wilson was of particular help because he had dealt with 
Sudanese warlords while he had served in the Clinton administration. He knew the region, and was a 
master negotiator. These skills proved extremely valuable to Jarch. 

Jarch was close to several warlords operating in the Sudan. In 2009, shortly after Hillary was 
appointed secretary of state, Jarch took out a fifty-year lease on 400,000 hectares (or one million 
acres — about the size of Vermont) in Unity State, South Sudan. 61 In addition to the rights to farm the 
land, it procured oil and uranium rights as well. As the Financial Times put it, the deal had “a 
decidedly 19th century flavor to it.” 62 

Sudan was in the middle of a civil war and the United States had placed restrictions on US 
companies wanting to do business in the country. So Jarch set up a subsidiary, Jarch Management, 
which was registered outside of the United States, “making it easier to circumvent such 
restrictions.” 63 

Jarch acquired the land by striking a bargain with Gabriel Matip, the eldest son of General Paulino 
Matip Nhial, who was deputy commander in chief of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) 
and former head of the South Sudan Defense Force (SSDF). The general was also put on the Jarch 
advisory board. SSDF bragged, “This company is set to become the largest producer of oil and gas in 
South Sudan.” 64 

Wilson’s firm continued signing up warlords and enriching their family members in exchange for 
lucrative leases on rebel-held territory. In 2010 it signed up Sudanese General Gabriel Tanginya as 
an “adviser” and leased a huge area of his native Jonglei state in what was called “Africa’s largest 
land deal.” 65 Tanginya, who has been accused of instigating violence against civilians in southern 
Sudan, was apparently a very welcome addition to the firm. Jarch declared that General Tanginya 
“will give the Company much needed expertise in Jonglei and expand its expertise in Greater Upper 
Nile.” 66 

By the time there were national elections in 2011, the newly minted vice president of South Sudan 
was Riek Machar, who was also an adviser to Jarch. Machar had been a rebel leader and later 
apologized for his role in the Bor Massacre, in which thousands of people had been killed. 67 

As South Sudan struggles with factional fighting following its independence in 2011, Jarch 
Capital-linked warlords are in the thick of the fight. General Peter Gadet, a former member of the 
Jarch Capital advisory board, is the target of international sanctions. According to the BBC, the 
international sanctions are in response to “reports of atrocities committed in the first half of 2014. ” 68 

The cluster of donors and advisers to the Clintons who rely on warlords and corrupt dictators is not 
confined to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, or Sudan. It extends further south on the 

continent and includes a longtime Clinton benefactor with close ties to the corrupt regime in Nigeria. 

Nigeria is widely recognized as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It has also been one 
of the most lucrative countries for the Clintons. Over the course of more than fifteen years, they have 
collected large speaking fees, campaign-related funds, and large contributions for the Clinton 
Foundation from those who have made fortunes by working in the corrupt world of Nigerian politics. 

In his first eight years on the global lecture circuit, Bill had never been paid to speak in Nigeria. 
But once Hillary was appointed secretary of state, he booked two of his top three highest-paid 
speeches ever by traveling to Nigeria, pulling in a whopping $700,000 each. 69 

The two speeches were allegedly underwritten by Nigerian media mogul Nduka Obaigbena, who 
owns Nigeria’s ThisDay newspaper. Obaigbena, a solidly built man “with a taste for bespoke Lanvin 
suits,” professes “to live modestly and discreetly,” all the while maintaining a home in Lagos, a large 
estate in Nigeria’s Delta State, and a sleek penthouse at the Ritz Carlton in Washington, DC. 70 

Obaigbena casts himself as a rebel fighting Nigeria’s corrupt political establishment. But he’s 
known more for his lavish parties and concerts, which have brought Beyonce and Jay-Z, as well as 
Bill Clinton, to Nigeria at enormous expense. Often these lavish events come at a price for ordinary 
Nigerians. When Clinton appeared at a ThisDay award event in 2013, he handed out checks to 
schoolteachers as a reward for their work. But while Clinton collected his fee, the teachers saw their 
checks from ThisDay bounce. 71 

Obaigbena is close to the Nigerian government of President Goodluck Jonathan, to whom he serves 
as an unofficial adviser. Jonathan has been accused of corruption by numerous international 
organizations. (As the Associated Press puts it, Obaigbena has “close ties to major business leaders 
and those in the ruling People’s Democratic Party.”) Hillary’s State Department said that Jonathan’s 
tenure is marked by “massive, widespread, and pervasive corruption” at all levels of the Nigerian 
government. 72 And yet, as with Ethiopia, Hillary granted the country a waiver for corruption so it 
could continue to receive US assistance. Back in 2006, when Jonathan was the governor of Bayelsa 
State, he authorized the transfer of $1 million from the government’s poverty alleviation fund to 
Obaigbena’ s organization so he could bring Beyonce to Nigeria. 73 

One longtime Clinton benefactor is businessman Gilbert Chagoury, who has also been implicated 
in corruption and bribery in Nigeria. Born in Lagos, Chagoury comes from a Lebanese family and has 
dual citizenship in Lebanon and the United Kingdom He built a financial empire in Nigeria with the 
help of General Sani Abacha, a Nigerian dictator whose five-year tenure was “known for its 
corruption and brutality.” 74 

Chagoury served as a “front for the general’s extensive business empire.” And the two had a 
business partner in their activities: Marc Rich, the fugitive oil and commodities broker. Chagoury 
apparently worked with Rich to sop up oil assets in Nigeria and sell them on the oil market for the 
benefit of General Abacha and his associates. The Nigerian media declared in 1999 that the “Gilbert 
Chagoury-Marc Rich alliance remains a formidable foe.” 75 

Abacha and Chagoury met when the future dictator was a young army officer. After Abacha carried 
out a coup in 1993, Chagoury received prized oil concessions and government construction 
contracts. 76 In exchange, Chagoury helped the general siphon off money and get it out of the country. 
Abacha’s rule was highly criticized in Washington, where hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign 
assistance were disappearing into European bank accounts. 77 During his rule, Abacha funneled 
billions of dollars to foreign bank accounts. Nigeria’s lead anticorruption prosecutor at the time, 
Nuhu Ribadu, put Chagoury at the center of the scheme. “You couldn’t investigate corruption without 

looking at Chagoury,” he said. According to Ribadu, Chagoury helped steer more than $4 billion into 
bank accounts in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and the Isle of Jersey. 78 

Recognizing that it helped to have highly placed friends in Washington, Chagoury started tunneling 
money to the 1996 Clinton reelection campaign and the Democratic National Committee. He 
contributed $460,000 to a Miami-based voter registration group tied to the DNC. (Because Chagoury 
is not an American citizen, he is unable to legally contribute directly to a campaign.) As the 
Washington Post put it, the nearly half-million-dollar contribution was given to “curry favor with 
Clinton’s administration on Abacha’s behalf.” 79 

Apparently it worked: in 1996, Chagoury and his wife attended the White House Christmas party. 80 
More significantly, Bill effectively changed US policy toward Nigeria with a single sentence. The 
United States government had been pressuring Abacha to step down and hold elections. Abacha was 
expected to go. But President Clinton said in 1998, “If [Abacha] stands for election, we hope he will 
stand as a civilian.” 81 In short, Clinton signaled that Abacha could stay; he simply needed to run as a 
civilian. The New York Times called it a “shift” in US policy. 

When Abacha died in 1998 (allegedly in the company of two prostitutes), the Nigerian government 
and European authorities began investigating the missing money. 82 They quickly fingered Chagoury. In 
2000 he was convicted in Geneva, Switzerland, of money laundering and “aiding a criminal 
organization in connection with the billions of dollars stolen from Nigeria during the Abacha years,” 
as PBS’s Frontline put it. (As part of a plea deal the conviction was later expunged.) 83 Chagoury cut 
a deal with the Nigerians and Swiss, returning $300 million of his own profits in exchange for legal 
immunity. Subsequently, the tiny island state of St. Lucia appointed him as its envoy to the United 
Nations Education, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), bringing him diplomatic immunity 
and preventing prosecution in other European countries. 84 Why St. Lucia bestowed this honor on him 
is unclear. 

Chagoury’s apparent complicity in the looting of Nigeria by a brutal dictator might be enough to 
deter most people from doing business with him. But not the Clintons. If anything, their relationship 
has blossomed. Clinton has recently been described as Chagoury’s “close friend.” 85 

Since his conviction in Europe, Chagoury has donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. In 2009, 
shortly after Hillary became secretary of state, he pledged a whopping $1 billion to the Clinton’s 
legacy project. 86 During a speech Bill delivered in St. Lucia, the island’s prime minister extended 
thanks to Chagoury for arranging the visit. 87 He was also an invited guest to Bill’s sixtieth birthday 
party and attended the wedding of Bill’s longtime aide Doug Band. The Chagourys were also active 
in Hillary’s 2008 presidential bid. Michel Chaghouri, a nephew in Los Angeles, was a bundler for 
the campaign and served on the campaign staff. 88 Numerous other relatives gave the maximum $4,600 
each to her campaign. 89 

Chagoury’s legal troubles continued. In April 2010 Gilbert Chagoury and his brother Jack were 
indicted by the US Justice Department in a massive bribery scandal involving $6 billion and 
Halliburton. Bribes had allegedly been paid to secure contracts in Nigeria. Eventually Chagoury and 
his brother were dropped from the case, and Halliburton settled with the federal government for $35 
million. 90 

Bill has lavished praise on Chagoury over the years. In 2005 Chagoury was presented with the 
Pride of Heritage award from the Lebanese community by Bill. 91 And in 2009 the Clinton Global 
Initiative gave Chagoury’s company an award for sustainable development. 92 In 2013 Bill showed up 

in Nigeria for a public ceremony involving one of Chagoury’s construction projects. 

Why the Clintons continue to associate with, take money from, and have transactions with Gilbert 
Chagoury remains a mystery No less an expert than Marc Rich, who had years of experience working 
with Chagoury and Nigeria, once described the country as “the global capital of corruption .” 93 

The Clinton Foundation has made its work in Africa a centerpiece of its global work on HIV/ AIDS 
and development. Unfortunately, many of those who are paying it and providing it with funds have 
profited off the worst excesses on the continent. One has to wonder why the Clintons would permit 
themselves to be so closely tied to such a corrupt group of individuals. 


Rainforest Riches 

Hillary, Bill, and Colombian Timber and Oil Deals 

In early June 2010 Bill Clinton met Frank Giustra in Colombia to launch a $20 million fund for small 

businesses. 1 The two had visited Colombia together numerous times: for paid speeches, to look in on 
Giustra’ s growing investments there, and to launch a Clinton Foundation project in the country. 

Giustra was invested in natural resources in Colombia. And he was looking to expand his holdings 
in oil, natural gas, coal, and timber. The country had been plagued by violence and narcoterrorism for 
decades and was slowly coming out of it, thanks in part to a large infusion of American foreign aid. 
(Colombia was the fourth largest recipient of US foreign and military aid in the world.) It was also 
desperate to get a free-trade agreement passed in the United States to jump-start its economy. 

What that meant was that Hillary, as secretary of state, held much of the country’s future in her 
hands. And as some unseen power of timing would have it, Hillary was set to arrive in Colombia the 
very next day. In her memoirs, Hillary called the fact that she and her husband were both in the 
country “a happy coincidence in our hectic schedules.” 2 

It was the waning weeks of Colombian president Alvaro Uribe’s tenure in office. The thin, 
bespectacled Uribe had first been elected in 2002 on a platform of fighting terrorism and violence. 
When he took office, he later wrote, “Vast swathes of Colombia were under total dominion of the 
narcoterroristas .” 3 For Uribe the fight was personal: his father had been killed by Revolutionary 
Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) terrorists in the 1980s. During his eight years in office, he had 
achieved an impressive record of success. But term limits prevented him from running again. (He 
tried holding a popular referendum that would get him another term, but Colombian courts rejected 
it.) He would be out of office by August 2010 but still had substantial powers until the next election. 

Hillary was popping over to Bogota from nearby Ecuador aboard a US government plane. After 
her aircraft touched down at Colombia’s Catam Military Airport, she was greeted by US ambassador 
William Brownfield and Colombian foreign minister Jaime Bermudez. Hillary expressed her strong 
support for the Uribe government and closer ties with Colombia. “The United States will continue to 
support the Colombian people, the Colombian military and their government in the ongoing struggle 
against the insurgents, the guerrillas, the narco-traffickers who would wish to turn the clock back,” 
she said. 4 

These were not meaningless niceties. Only a couple of months earlier, three influential Democratic 
senators — who were also Hillary’s friends — had written to her about cutting aid to Colombia. Russ 
Feingold of Wisconsin, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont had penned a letter 
saying it was time to back away. “Given U.S. record budget deficits, we cannot afford to continue 
assistance that is not achieving sufficient results,” they wrote. They also dinged Uribe on human 
rights. “In particular,” they said, “human rights abuses by Colombian military personnel supported by 
the U.S. continue, and those responsible are rarely brought to justice.” 5 

Nor were they alone. Foreign aid for Colombia was never a popular subject among Democrats, 
who were worried about human rights and labor rights conditions in the country. 6 

From the airport Hillary headed into Bogota and met Bill at a restaurant in the northern part of the 
city. With a few friends (it is unclear if Giustra was also there) they enjoyed cappuccinos and a steak 

The next morning, June 9, Bill headed to Casa de Narino, the presidential palace, for a quiet 
meeting with President Uribe. They met for approximately an hour and had what the media called an 
“animated dialogue.” 7 

Bill left Casa de Narino before noon. Hillary arrived for lunch with the president, after which they 
signed a series of science and technology agreements. Most importantly for Uribe, Hillary also lent 
her vocal support to a trade agreement between the United States and Colombia. “First, let me 
underscore President Obama’s and my commitment to the Free Trade Agreement,” she told RCN 
Television. “We are going to continue to work to obtain the votes in the Congress to be able to pass 
it. We think it’s strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States. And I return very 
invigorated ... to begin a very intensive effort to try to obtain the votes to get the Free Trade 
Agreement finally ratified.” 8 

Uribe could not have been more pleased. It is also worth noting that her support for this agreement 
represented a complete reversal of her position — and Obama’s — from the 2008 campaign. 

Days after Hillary left Bogota, Prima Colombia Properties, which Frank Giustra has ownership 
interest in through a shell company called Flagship Industries, announced that it had acquired the right 
to cut timber in a biologically diverse forest on the pristine Colombian shoreline. The International 
Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) calls this property “one of the world’s largest untapped 
hardwood timber supplies.” 9 Through its Colombia-domiciled subsidiary REM International CISA, 
Prima entered into an exclusive agreement with the Colombian government giving it the right to 
“harvest 1,050,000 cubic meters of hardwood” on the west coast of Colombia. 10 The timber would 
be cut along picturesque Huaca Beach in Choco and shipped to China. 11 

Days later, Pacific Rubiales Energy, a company for which Giustra was the Canadian face, 
announced that the Uribe government was giving the company the right to drill for oil on six lucrative 
plots. 12 Pacific Rubiales acquired the largest exploration acreage in the Putumayo Basin, which sits at 
the center of Colombia’s oil belt. The other plots were in the giant reserves east of Ciusiana- 
Cupiagua, and three blocks in the Llanos Basin, a prolific oil-rich area at the foot of the Andes 

It was a stunning success, given that Pacific Rubiales was a relatively new company with little 
track record in the country. But these lucrative concessions helped the company grow quickly. As 
German Hernandez, who oversees business operations for the company, explained in 2011, “[A few 
years ago] we were fewer than 20 people, practically living in tents with mosquito netting. . . . Today 
we are the number one project in the petroleum industry in Colombia.” 13 By the end of 2010 the 
company was producing a net of seventy thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day in Colombia, and 
boasted a market cap of over $8.3 billion. 14 

According to Pacific Rubiales cochairman Serafino Iacono, Giustra’s role at the company is to 
provide “valuable financial capital and political capital [emphasis added] along the way.” 15 

Pacific Rubiales signed up as an early contributor to the Clinton Foundation. 16 Pacific Rubiales 
and underwriters contributed over $4 million to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative 
(CGSGI). 17 And as we have seen in several other cases, the company’s decision to give to a charity 
thousands of miles away to fund work in Colombia struck local charities as odd. They, along with 
labor-backed social welfare organizations, had been clamoring for the company to provide donations 

for several health and welfare initiatives. They also wanted the company to raise the salaries of 
employees. These efforts were rebuffed. Instead of flowing to local charities, the bulk of the 
company’s charitable contributions were given to the Clinton Foundation. 18 

Pacific Rubiales, despite its announced commitment, does not appear on the Clinton Foundation list 
of donors. Repeated phone calls and e-mails to Pacific Rubiales to determine whether it honored 
their commitment have not been returned as of this writing. 

Giustra’s run of good business news in the summer of 2010 was not finished. Less than two weeks 
after Hillary left, yet another of Giustra’s companies, Petroamerica, announced that Colombian 
regulators had designated the company a “restricted operator,” which meant it was eligible to explore 
for and produce oil. 19 Petroamerica had been founded only a few months earlier, in late 2009, by 
what a Canadian business journal called “a group of part-time managers and directors.” 20 Now, 
courtesy of the Uribe government, it was sitting on some very big prospects in Colombia. “Of all the 
resource projects that I am involved with, this is the one I am most excited about,” Giustra told one 
business publication. 21 

The Clinton Foundation was integrated into US State Department energy initiatives in Colombia. 
According to a leaked State Department memo, on November 8, 2009, a US government delegation 
arrived in Colombia to explore the rapid expansion of energy and mining loans backed by the US 
government in Colombia. “The energy sector in Colombia has big plans to expand and the Export- 
Import Bank (Exlm) and the U.S. Trade Development Agency (TDA) want to be a part of this 
expansion by providing financial backing and trade capacity building assistance.” When TDA 
representative Patricia Arriagada arrived in Colombia, she met with mines and energy minister 
Silvana Giaimo. According to a leaked State Department cable, in that meeting Arriagada was 
“accompanied by Manuel Olivera, local director of the Clinton Foundation.” 22 The memo mentions 
no other nonprofit organization involved in these discussions. 

As a result of that delegation, the US government expanded energy and mining loans in Colombia. 23 
One of the big projects funded by the US Export- Import Bank was a $280 million liquid natural gas 
(LNG) barge that was to be used to transport LNG from Colombia to China. The barge was being 
built for Giustra’s company, Pacific Rubiales. 24 

Giustra had other projects in Latin America that received US taxpayer money. Giustra’s Endeavour 
Mining arranged for Export-Import funding in September 2010 as part of an $858 million package of 
loans for a copper mining project in Mexico called Baja Mining. 25 (According to an Endeavour 
PowerPoint marketing presentation, it “closed” the deal.) The project involved developing an 
underground copper-zinc mine near the Mexican town of Santa Rosalia. Endeavour was an adviser on 
the deal, but Baja Mining was also a “core investment” for the firm, according to one investment 
document. 26 US taxpayers were on the hook for approximately $420 million. 27 

The Baja investment didn’t go well — at least for American taxpayers. According to the Office of 
the Inspector General at the Export- Import Bank, the project was plagued with cost overruns. The 
report also suggested that “corporate malfeasance” had taken place. As the report put it, “Our 
inspection revealed evidence of inappropriate conduct by several parties including the Borrower’s 
failure to make timely disclosure of significant cost overruns, inaccurate representations, allegations 
of fraud related to one of the project’s local vendors, management impropriety, and an over-arching 
lack of governance.” The report noted further that the Export-Import Bank had failed to perform 
proper due diligence when approving the deal. The project apparently fell into default within six 
months of financial closing. 28 

The full extent of taxpayer funds spent and US government power exerted that helped Giustra 
cannot be fully known. In Colombia, as in other countries, he uses a web of companies, shell 
companies, foreign affiliates, and offshore entities that make tracking his investments extremely 
difficult. In addition to the investments mentioned in this chapter, he also controls a private company 
called Blue Pacific, which “owns ports under construction in Cartagena and Barranquilla, as well as 
power plants, farms, mines, and other infrastructure assets” in Colombia. 29 

Colombia had long been a focus of interest for the Clintons. During his presidency, Bill won praise 
from the Colombians for pouring aid into the country to fight both drug cartels and a revolutionary 
insurgency. In 2000 he had initiated Plan Colombia, an ambitious program to escalate the war on 
drugs that came with more than $1 .3 billion in aid. 30 

Once he was out of office, his attention shifted from the war on drugs to Colombia’s ambitions to 
sign a free-trade agreement with the United States. The Colombian government wanted a free-trade 
agreement so that it could sell its products, including natural resources, in the US market tariff free. 
President George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress generally favored the deal. Opposition 
mostly came from Democrats (and organized labor) who felt the move would hurt wages for US 
workers. Democrats also argued that Colombia’s human rights record was poor. 31 

For Colombians themselves, it was clear that, as the leading Colombian newspaper, El Pais , put it 
in 2006, “The support of Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will 
be decisive.” 32 

The story began, as it often does, with a lucrative speech. In June 2005 a South American business 
group called Gold Service International offered Bill $800,000 to deliver four speeches in South 
America. Gold Service was a keen supporter of the proposed US-Colombia free-trade agreement, 
because it would boost Colombian exports to the United States. 

This was a lot of money at that time. Though Bill’s fee would go up appreciably when his wife 
became secretary of state, his average payment through 20 10 was $150,000. 

Giustra loaned Bill his jet, and Bill made stops in Mexico City and Bogota, and then gave two 
speeches in Sao Paulo, Brazil. 33 As Andres Franco, the group’s chief operating officer, explained, 
“he was supportive of the trade agreement at the time that he came.” And Bill spoke openly about his 
support for it. 34 

Meanwhile, Bill made efforts to bring Giustra and Uribe together so that the Canadian investor 
could expand his operations in Colombia. Thus, in September 2005 Bill hosted a “philanthropic 
event” with Uribe. And as he often did, he mixed philanthropy with business. According to the Wall 
Street Journal , the purpose of the meeting was to introduce the two men. As the Journal reported, 
Uribe and Giustra “put up two chairs in a hallway and talked for about ten minutes. . . . Later in the 
day, a top Clinton aide told Mr. Giustra that he heard the meeting with Mr. Uribe went well.” 35 

In January 2007 Giustra’s new company, Pacific Rubiales, signed a pipeline deal with Ecopetrol, 
the state-owned Colombian energy company. One month after the deal was sealed, Bill, Giustra, and 
Uribe met at the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, New York. In March, they met again, this time in the 
Colombian port city of Cartagena. 36 

All along, Democrats remained opposed to military assistance to Colombia as well as the 
Colombian free-trade agreement. 37 But Senator Hillary Clinton’s views on the matter remained 

ambiguous. As one Latin American financial publication put it, when it came to her positions on trade 
“we find a bit of everything.” She was in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA) and supported trade deals with Chile, Peru, and Singapore. But she was against the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement and extending trade preferences with other South American 
countries. 38 

So the Colombians continued their courtship by various means. 

In June 2007 President Uribe arrived in New York City to headline a dinner event at a posh hotel. 
The event was titled “Colombia Is Passion.” In fact, the night was largely about Bill. Uribe presented 
him with the “Colombia Is Passion” award for “believing in our country and encouraging others to do 
the same.” 39 

As Newsweek reported, 

Eager to repair its image in the United States and help boost support for a controversial United States-Colombia free-trade 
agreement, the beleaguered government of Alvaro Uribe came up with a clever PR move: give Clinton an award at a banquet, 
where the popular former president would say nice things about the country. 

The dinner included a video depicting Bill as a Colombian hero. Uribe even praised him as the 
country’s unofficial minister of tourism. Bill praised Uribe in turn and declared that, while there was 
currently a debate in Washington about the free-trade agreement, “[w]e need to remember that we are 
friends.” 40 Then he invited Uribe to be a “featured attendee” at the annual Clinton Global Initiative 
meeting in New York that September. 

As it happens, publicity for the awards ceremony had been handled by Burson-Marsteller 
Worldwide, a PR firm then headed by Mark Penn, a longtime political adviser and pollster for the 
Clintons. 41 Penn, who was also serving as Hillary’s campaign manager for the 2008 run, was 
advising the Colombians on how to get the free-trade deal through Congress. Uribe paid Penn’s firm 
$300, OOO 42 

Penn’s ties to the Colombians proved too embarrassing and he resigned as Hillary’s campaign 
manager. For good measure, the Colombians let Burson go, too. 43 

Also on the Colombian payroll was Hillary’s campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson’s lobbying 
firm, Glover Park. The firm was paid $40,000 a month. While Wolfson didn’t work directly on the 
Colombia account, he did have an equity stake in the firm. 44 

The trade deal and Penn’s consulting arrangement soon became issues in the Democratic primary. 
Courting the labor vote, Barack Obama had come out strongly against a free-trade deal with 
Colombia. So did Hillary. In the sort of overheated rhetoric we often hear on the campaign trail, she 
was uncompromising. “As I have said for months, I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the 
deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.” 45 

Uribe, sensing the trade pact was imperiled by American politics, lashed out at Obama — but not at 
Hillary. “I deplore the fact that Senator Obama, aspiring to be president of the United States, should 
be unaware of Colombia’s efforts,” he said. “I think it is for political calculations that he is making a 
statement that does not correspond to Colombia’s reality.” 46 

Given that both Hillary and Obama were publicly opposed to the trade deal, either way it looked 
ominous for Uribe. As one economic consultancy put it, “we are concerned that a Democrat win of 
the presidency may stymie the FTA for even longer.” 47 

Obama, of course, went on to win the nomination and the presidency. And Hillary, as his newly 

minted secretary of state, was quick to change course on the trade pact. In early 2009, while the 
Obama administration was reportedly still figuring out its trade policy, Hillary let Uribe know she 
was “very proud to be working with Colombia” on the trade deal. As Colombian foreign minister 
Jaime Bermudez Merizalde told the BBC after he met with Hillary in February 2009, “What we 
talked about was that we have to work together to see how this issue can be handled in Congress.” 48 

Hillary had come out swinging in favor of the trade pact when she met with Uribe shortly after Bill 
in June 2010. By early 2011 she was helping lead the effort to pass the deal. “There are still 
negotiations that are taking place,” she told reporters after meeting with Colombian vice president 
Angelino Garzon. “We don’t want to send an agreement just for the sake of sending an agreement. We 
want to send an agreement and get it passed.” 

“Secretary Clinton’s remarks represent the clearest signal the administration has sent with respect 
to its intentions to move the Colombia agreement forward in a specific time frame,” said National 
Foreign Trade Council president Bill Reinsch. 49 

It did not go unnoticed that this represented a complete policy reversal on Hillary’s part. She 
justified the shift on the grounds that the human rights and labor situation in Colombia had improved. 
Hillary claimed in a press conference that “[w]e have seen improvements in the human rights 
situations in a number of countries,” and cited Colombia, among others. 

But Hillary’s words concerning labor union conditions contradicted her own department’s most 
recent human rights report. 50 The number of trade unionists killed had actually gone up in 20 10. 51 

Hillary also claimed that the trade agreement was now a good deal for everyone. “The U.S.- 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement would allow our businesses to sell goods in Colombia duty-free — 
the same way Colombian goods have entered the United States for many years — and it comes with 
important new guarantees on labor and human rights.” 52 

That view was not shared by the AFL-CIO, which declared in 2011, “Colombia remains the most 
dangerous place in the world for union members.” 53 Human Rights Watch reported that there had been 
“virtually no progress” since 2006 in obtaining convictions for union violence, and the press cited 
thirty-eight recent murders of trade unionists in the few months after Colombian elections in 2010. 

The trade pact with Colombia was approved by Congress and President Obama signed off on it. 
The pact benefited US businesses trying to sell products in Colombia and also boosted Colombian 
exports to the United States. The Colombian government and business community has hailed it as an 
important victory for the Colombian people. 

In February 2012 Bill and Giustra were back in Colombia together for meetings and some golf. 
Bill was playing in a golf tournament (the Pacific Rubiales Open, no less), which was a fundraiser 
for the Clinton Foundation. Bill met with President Juan Manuel Santos. 

Since then, Giustra’s interests in Colombia have run into trouble. For instance, the manner in which 
energy concessions were handed out has come under fire. There have been media claims of a “juicy 
concession” for Giustra from the Colombian government obtained with the help of Bill Clinton. 54 
Colombian senator Jorge Enrique Robledo claimed the Uribe government showed favoritism to 
Pacific Rubiales during the process of granting Colombian oil concessions. 55 

Pacific Rubiales has been the subject of repeated complaints about “deplorable conditions” for 
workers. The complaints included “contracts, work hours, pay, democratic guarantees, housing, 
hygiene, transportation and the right to organize.” When leaders from the country’s petroleum workers 
union Union Sindical Obrera (USO) tried to mediate, Pacific Rubiales reportedly blocked the public 
highways in the region to prevent them from arriving. 56 

Another of Giustra’s companies, Prima Colombia Hardwood, has also run into problems. In May 
2011 the Ministry of Environment began monitoring the logging being done by Prima Colombia. 
According to published reports, the company needed to answer for ten environmental violations, 
including erosion of the natural wildlife habitat, shifting water currents in the area, and the alteration 
of the vegetation cover. The National Environment Licensing Authority (ANLA) subsequently decided 
to deny all environmental permits required by Prima Colombia. 57 


Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Stvle 

The 2010 Haitian Relief Effort 

o n the afternoon of January 12, 2010, a devastating 7.0 earthquake shook the island nation of Haiti. 
In less than a minute, the violent tremors leveled an estimated 25,000 government and commercial 
buildings, more than 100,000 homes, and killed approximately 230,000 people. 

When the earth stopped quaking, more than 1.5 million people were left living in makeshift tent 
camps. “In 30 seconds, Haiti lost 60 percent of its GDP,” said Haitian prime minister Jean-Max 
Bellerive. For a country whose history was plagued with natural disasters, corrupt leaders, and 
abject poverty, it must have seemed like the exclamation point on some sort of cruel natural joke. 

The international charitable response from groups like the Salvation Army and the Red Cross was 
generous, as millions of people around the world wrote checks or donated via their cell phones. 
Foreign governments committed funds, too. 

Days after the earthquake, Hillary Clinton was en route to Port-au-Prince to inspect the damage. To 
accommodate her, all flights to and from the island were halted for three hours. Hillary arrived on a 
Coast Guard C-130, along with American relief workers and a supply of toothpaste, mustard, and 
cigarettes her staff had purchased from US supermarkets the night before. She did not leave the 
airport, to avoid impeding rescue efforts, but declared her deep sympathy for the people of Haiti and 
offered assurances that America would be Haiti’s “friend, partner, and supporter,” with the State 
Department and USAID taking a front and center role in the relief effort. 

Bill Clinton was soon on the ground in Haiti, too. He had been appointed a United Nations special 
envoy to the island in 2009 and traveled to Haiti regularly. With a cluster of cameras around him, Bill 
teared up as he described what he saw. 

The Clintons’ close friend and confidante, Cheryl Mills, who was Hillary’s chief of staff and 
counselor at the State Department, was assigned responsibility for how the taxpayer money, directed 
through USAID, would be spent. 1 Within days, the State Department conceived and created a funnel 
that would direct the aid and relief money that would soon flood into the country. The Interim Haiti 
Recovery Commission (IHRC) was given the task of executing an action plan developed with the help 
of Haitian authorities and countries that were donating funds to the rebuilding effort. It was supposed 
to prioritize the rebuilding of Port-au-Prince, with a focus on restoring the economy and government 
services. 2 

Bill was promptly appointed cochair, along with Bellerive. Together, they constituted IHRC’s 
Executive Committee, giving them concentrated decision-making power. In this role Bill was 
ultimately responsible for the approval of any projects that would be funded by US taxpayer dollars 
or international organizations. Clinton and Bellerive would prove to work effectively together. As we 
will see, Bellerive would later go into business with members of the Clinton family in Haiti. 

In public statements, Bill waxed romantic about how they would rebuild Haiti, like a phoenix from 
the ashes, in a grand vision of social engineering. “I want them to close their landfills,” he told 
Esquire magazine, “recycle everything and use the rest for energy. Wouldn’t it be great if they 
become the first wireless nation in the world? They could, I’m telling you, they really could.” 3 

It is hard to underestimate the role that IHRC would play in the disbursement of funds. As the State 
Department itself noted, in addition to reviewing project applications and deciding if those projects 
would be funded, “IHRC is the planning body for the Haitian recovery” In particular, as the US 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) put it, IHRC was supposed to “coordinate donors, conduct 
strategic planning, approve reconstruction projects, and provide accountability.” 4 

With the massive expenditure of US taxpayer money, some things have improved in Haiti. Some 
roads are considerably better than they were before. A large amount of debris has been removed. But 
beyond that, by the measure of promises made by the Clintons, the efforts to rebuild Haiti, which 
were largely controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton, have been a massive failure. 

Five years after the earthquake, Haiti is not a “wireless nation.” Billions of dollars have indeed 
been poured into the country, with Hillary and Bill having much of the say in how the funds were 
allocated. But according to GAO, IHRC ignored the action plan and funding priorities that had been 
set up by the Haitian government and donor countries. 5 Moreover, much of the taxpayer money 
intended for practical rebuilding was squandered. 6 Funds for reconstruction have ended up in 
worthless projects — while in several cases Clinton friends, allies, and even family members have 
benefited from the reconstruction circumstances. 

Natural disasters often create enormous opportunities for politically connected contractors to make 
money courtesy of the rebuilding effort. Author and critic Naomi Klein calls it “disaster capitalism.” 

Disaster capitalism need not be all bad. You do need qualified professionals to go into devastated 
areas and begin the process of providing immediate relief and rebuilding infrastructure. An example 
of where such efforts went well was in Indonesia, following the tsunami that devastated the region in 
2004. Communities that were cut off from the rest of the country saw their services and infrastructure 
restored, and crime and corruption were generally kept under control, according to the World Bank. 7 

In the case of Haiti, the process was handled very differently. IHRC, for example, was supposed to 
have a Performance and Anticorruption Office (PAO) to monitor reconstruction efforts and 
investigate allegations of corruption. But it was eleven months before a single employee was even 
hired as part of PAO. 8 What’s more, IHRC was never fully staffed, and much of the decision making 
was left in the hands of key employees of the Clinton Foundation. 9 

Less than a month after the earthquake hit, US ambassador Kenneth Merten sent a cable from Port- 
au-Prince to State Department headquarters titled “the gold rush is on .” 10 A flood of eager 
businessmen were rushing to the capital looking to obtain government contracts. But securing 
contracts and business apparently required knowing the right people. Put simply, it was widely 
believed you needed access to the Clintons. 

Florida-based contractor J. R. Bergeron was one of several business owners jockeying to land 
lucrative contracts to help with disaster cleanup. To compete for cash in what Bergeron called “the 
Super Bowl of disasters,” he understood the Clintons to be the referees. 11 His company, Bergeron 
Emergency Services, invested more than a million dollars to move employees and equipment to Haiti 
even before landing a contract. But Bergeron knew he would have to do more than just demonstrate 
expertise and readiness. As he later observed, “posturing and aggressive self-promotion in Haiti was 
an inevitable part of this high-stakes competition. . . . Politics plays a large role.” 12 

Bergeron hired two lobbyists, giving them the job of “reaching out to officials of the Clinton 
Foundation’s Haiti earthquake relief efforts and the U.S. Agency for International Development.” 13 
They were Mitch Berger and Alex Heckler; Heckler had served on Hillary’s national campaign 
finance committee. Bergeron also says he made a donation to the Clinton Foundation. (Records 

indicate he gave less than $250.) He failed to obtain any contracts. 

The realities seemed clear. As one individual told the Wall Street Journal , “if you don’t have 
Clinton connections you won’t be in the game.” 14 

But those with impeccable Clinton credentials apparently didn’t need to hire lobbyists. 

Merten’s cable specifically mentioned the arrival of longtime Clinton friend and confidant General 
Wesley Clark in the weeks after the earthquake. 15 Like Bill, Clark was from Arkansas and had been 
NATO commander during Bill’s presidency. Indeed, Clark had been one of Clintons’ favorite 
generals and received several military promotions when Bill was in the White House. As the New 
Yorker points out, Clark’s last three army jobs, including two at the highest rank, were awarded to 
him without the army’s recommendation. 16 

When Clark sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2004, Bill strongly backed his 
candidacy. When Hillary ran for president in 2008, Clark raised money for her campaign. Clark also 
serves on an advisory board of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). Much later, in 2013, he signed the 
first fundraising letter for a superpac backing a 2016 Hillary presidential bid. 17 

According to Merten’s cable, Clark quickly scored a meeting with Haitian president Rene 
Preval. 18 

Clark had come to Port-au-Prince in search of a home-building contract for a south Florida 
company called Innovida, a manufacturer of building materials. (Clark sat on the board of the 
company along with former Florida governor Jeb Bush.) Clark was a big cheerleader for the 
company. “It can do more for housing in Haiti, better and faster, than any other technology out there,” 
he said. Innovida ’s ties to the Clintons ran even deeper than Clark. According to the South Florida 
Business Journal , Innovida’s CEO Claudio Osorio was a “big fundraiser” for the Hillary 2008 
campaign and had contributed to CGI. 19 

Innovida had little track record of actually building homes. Yet the company saw its project fast- 
tracked by the Haitian government and the State Department. 20 Innovida received a $10 million loan 
from the US government to build five hundred houses in Haiti. 

Sadly, the houses were never built. In 2012 Osorio was indicted and convicted of financial fraud. 
Prosecutors would later accuse Osorio, who drove a Maserati and lived in a Miami Beach mansion, 
of using the money intended for relief victims to “repay investors and for his and his co-conspirators 
personal benefit and to further the fraud scheme.” 21 He was ultimately sentenced to twelve years in 
jail. Innovida collapsed. 

It is hard to overstate the power the Clintons wielded in the disbursement of US taxpayer money for 
Haitian relief. Esquire magazine called Bill the “CEO of a leaderless nation,” because of his role as 
the cochair of IHRC. 22 The Miami Herald repeatedly referred to Bill as the “co-czar of the recovery 
effort.” 23 Others called him “president of Haiti” or “viceroy” because of his powers. Hillary, as 
secretary of state, had ultimate control over the dispersement of US taxpayer aid dollars. 24 

Many Haitians believed the Clintons further demonstrated their power in Haiti when Garry Conille 
became prime minister in October 2011. Conille had worked for Bill as a speechwriter and as his 
UN special envoy chief of staff. 25 Conille ’s appointment was seen as a compromise, and the fact that 
he was backed by Bill Clinton was touted by some Haitians as one of the reasons for his selection. 26 

What happened in Haiti was the classic Clinton Blur, mixing philanthropy, politics, and business. 

Bill arrived in Port-au-Prince wearing several hats and pursuing myriad agendas, both public and 
private. As the Economist succinctly noted, 

The strange multi-dimensional role that Mr. Clinton plays as co-chair of the IHRC, special UN envoy, former US president, 
spouse of the US secretary of state, and head of his own foundation which supports projects in the country, will continue to lead to 
confusion about who he advocates for and to whom he ultimately answers . 27 

Pushback from within IHRC came almost immediately In October 2010 Jean- Marie Bourjolly, a 
member of IHRC, wrote a memorandum to the cochairs and the other commission members cautioning 
that by “vesting all powers and authority of the Board in the Executive Committee [Clinton and 
Bellerive], it is clear that what is expected of us [the rest of IHRC] is to act as a rubber-stamping 
body.” 28 Bourj oily’s concerns were not appreciated. Indeed, his memorandum was not included in the 
official minutes of the October IHRC meeting. 

Other commission members and employees co nfi rmed that Bill and Hillary got what they wanted 
when it came to Haiti projects and contracts. As one employee noted, projects were approved 
because “they were submitted by USAID and State.” Moreover, “as long as USAID is submitting it 
and USAID is paying for it, they would be approved.” 29 

In December 2010 nine of the fourteen Haitian IHRC members wrote an official complaint to 
Clinton and Bellerive; they felt “completely disconnected from the activities of the IHRC.” IHRC was 
moving forward on projects that didn’t seem to conform to the action plan that the Haitian government 
and donor nations had agreed to in the months following the tragedy. The members warned that “we 
risk ending up with a variety of ill-assorted projects, some of which are certainly interesting and 
useful taken individually, but which collectively can neither meet the urgency nor lay the foundation 
for the rehabilitation of Haiti, and even less its development.” 30 

The GAO echoed those concerns, noting in May 2011, “funding for approved projects is uneven 
across sectors and is not necessarily aligned with Haitian priorities.” 

Bill’s role as unofficial “viceroy” raised questions in the Haitian community because of the 
Clintons’ penchant for mixing politics with crony business arrangements in Haiti. Back when Bill had 
been appointed special envoy for the United Nations in 2009, the Haiti Observateur challenged both 
Clintons to “come clean about [Bill’s] relationship to the former Haitian president and he and his 
wife’s business dealings in Haiti.” 31 

“There have been whispers and rumors for quite a while about the Clintons’ choice connections to 
the former president and particularly the telephone business in Haiti,” the paper said. 

As president in 1994, Bill Clinton had sent troops to Haiti to return to power Jean-Bertrand 
Aristide, the duly elected president who had been forced out in a 1991 coup. While president, after he 
was restored to power, a special deal was granted to a small US-based company called Fusion 
Communications. (The prime minister of Haiti at the time was Aristide friend and ally Rene Preval, 
who was president at the time of the earthquake.) The Haitian government-owned telecom company, 
Teleco, granted Fusion long-distance minutes from the United States to Haiti at a deeply discounted 
price. With a large number of Haitians living in the United States and calling home, this was a big 

Fusion was a relatively small player in the long-distance telephone market. But it was top-heavy 
with operatives and politicians closely aligned with Bill and Hillary. The board of directors included 
Tom “Mack” McFarty, Bill’s former chief of staff, and was headed by Marvin Rosen, who had been 
chairman of the Democratic National Committee’s finance committee during Bill’s 1996 reelection 

campaign. It was under Rosen’s tenure that the notorious White House fundraising coffees, rental of 
the Lincoln Bedroom to large contributors, and foreign donations from China and Asia had 
occurred. 32 Also on the board was Ray Mabus, a former Mississippi governor whom Bill had 
appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia. 33 

Teleco’s special arrangement with Fusion was supposed to be public, in keeping with the 
regulations and laws of the FCC. But the company worked hard to keep it secret. As Wall Street 
Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O’ Grady, who broke the story, wrote, “By law the agreement is a 
public document but Fusion wouldn’t give it to me until the FCC required them to do so.” It took her 
eight years to get a copy of the contract. 34 

It’s easy to see why. The contract gave Fusion access to the Haitian telephone network at a rate of 
twelve cents a minute, even though the official FCC rate was fifty cents a minute. In short, it was a 
sweetheart deal. Fusion says it “never made any improper payments or engaged in any improper 
activity with regard to its relationship with Teleco.” But of course, it didn’t have to. 35 

After the 2010 earthquake, more than a decade later, there were new telecom prizes available in 
Haiti. The system was set up so that decisions on doling out contracts and projects went through the 

In the months following the earthquake, the Clintons began pushing the idea of a wireless mobile 
phone money-transfer system for Haiti. The idea was to enable friends and relatives to send money 
directly to people in the quake-ravaged country. Hillary’s USAID was quick to send taxpayer money 
via a grant; it also organized the effort. The Bill Gates Foundation also came on board. The Haiti 
Mobile Money Initiative also offered incentive funds to companies who would establish mobile 
money services in the country. 

The initiative’s big winner was Digicel, a mobile phone company owned by Irish billionaire Denis 
O’Brien. Digicel received millions in US taxpayer money for its TchoTcho Mobile system. 

( TchoTcho means “pocket money” in Creole.) The USAID Food for Peace program, under direct 
control of the State Department through Cheryl Mills, chose the TchoTcho system for its money 
transfers. Haitians were given cell phones and a free TchoTcho account. When Haitians used the 
system, they paid O’Brien’s company millions in fees. They also became users of O’Brien’s 
TchoTcho program. 36 

O’Brien had bought the company in 2008. After the project’s launch, Digicel’s mobile phone 
subscriptions soared and its profit margins rose, winning praise from investors. 37 By 2012 Digicel 
had 77 percent of the Haitian mobile phone market, a rise fueled in part by the fact that it was a 
digital bank supplier. 

Was the mobile money system a good idea? Very possibly it was. But the trouble was not in the 
idea itself; rather, it was the fact that it was helping make O’Brien lots of money. From April 2011 to 
March 2012 Digicel’s revenues increased 14 percent and its subscriber base jumped 27 percent. By 
September 2012 Haiti had overtaken Jamaica as Digicel’s most profitable market. The Haitian market 
became key to the success of Digicel. O’Brien granted himself $300 million in dividends from 
Digicel in 2012. 38 

O’Brien was in turn making money for the Clintons. 

O’Brien arranged at least three speeches in Ireland, well as a speech in Jamaica. Bill’s October 9, 
2013, speech at the Conrad Hotel in Dublin was his third in three years, “and was mostly facilitated 
by billionaire Irish tycoon Denis O’Brien,” noted Irish Central. “Last year Clinton delivered the 
keynote address at the Worldwide Ireland Funds annual conference in Cork. . . . The year before he 

was flown over to Ireland on O’Brien’s private jet to deliver a speech at the Global Irish Economic 
Forum in Dublin Castle.” 39 In October 2010 Clinton gave a speech in Jamaica for $225,000 on “Our 
Common Humanity.” The speech was sponsored by Whisky Productions, in partnership with 
O’Brien’s Digicel. 40 

The timing of these paid speeches is also notable. The Haitian Mobile Money Initiative (HMMI) 
was announced in June 2010. Three months later, on September 29, Bill gave a speech at Dublin 
castle sponsored by O’Brien. The next day, Digicel filed notice of its intent to compete for HMMI 
contracts. In January of the following year, Digicel became the first company to be awarded funds for 
participation in HMMI. 

On October 8, 2011, Bill gave a speech for the Global Irish Economic Forum, again facilitated by 
O’Brien. The following day, Digicel was awarded $100,000 through HMMI, which it was to split 
with fellow cell provider Voila. 

On December 2 of the same year, IJS AID paid the first installment of what would eventually be 
more than $2 million of taxpayer money into O’Brien’s Digicel Foundation, based in Jamaica. 
According to government databases, Digicel had never received taxpayer money before. 

The interlay of money and favors also included the use of O’Brien’s jet. When Frank Giustra’s 
jetliner was not available, Clinton used O’Brien’s, a modest Gulfstream550 that seats twenty. 41 

In addition to forking over these immense speaking fees, O’Brien was also a major contributor to 
the Clinton Foundation, pouring between $1 million and $5 million into the Clintons’ legacy project 
sometime in 20 1 0 or 20 1 1 . 

The Clintons lavished praise on O’Brien for his generosity and business acumen. In 2012 Bill 
named O’Brien a Clinton Global Citizen, an annual award offered by CGI. O’Brien received his 
award before a cheering crowd as Bill praised him for his visionary leadership ability. Bill also 
praised him in an article he penned for Time magazine titled “The Case for Optimism” 42 

Ironically, Bill was conferring this award after an Irish government tribunal issued a scathing 
report concerning how O’Brien had made his fortune in the early days of the Irish wireless industry. 
The tribunal found that in the 1990s O’Brien had purchased properties for a government official 
named Michael Fowry, who was responsible for Irish telecom policy. The properties included land 
in Mansfield, England, and a home in Cheadle, England, that were purchased with funds from 
O’Brien’s Credit Suisse account in Fondon. In exchange, the tribunal found, “Fowry went to 
considerable effort to assist Denis O’Brien in securing the mobile phone license” that would end up 
making him a very rich man. For his part, O’Brien denies ever giving money to government officials 
and he was never formally charged by authorities. 43 

But it wasn’t just connected businessmen who were benefiting from the rebuilding of Haiti. Clinton 
family members did, too. Bill and Hillary had been looking for investors to come to Haiti. But it was 
a risky prospect, given the infrastructure problems, social and political instability, and endemic 
corruption. One possible bright spot was mining. Haiti is rich in natural resources — there is an 
estimated $20 billion in gold, silver, and other precious minerals under the rocky Haitian soil. 

In 2012 the Haitian government decided to do something it had not done in more than half a 
century: grant permits for open-pit gold mining. 

One of two recipients was a small North Carolina start-up called VCS Mining. The company had 
little track record of mining operations in Haiti, or anywhere else for that matter. But its leadership 
would later boast a board member with a familiar last name: Tony Rodham, Hillary’s youngest 
brother. Rodham would join the board of advisors less than a year after VCS was granted the mining 

permit. Another member of the board: former Haitian prime minister (and IHRC cochairman with 
Bill) Jean- Max Bellerive. 

The Haitian government gave VCS a “gold mining exploitation permit’ ’ (in the company’s words) 
for a project in Morne Bossa, which could be generously renewed for up to twenty- five years. “This 
is one of two permits issued today, the first permit of their kind issued in over five decades,” the 
company proudly noted. 

Rodham had no background in mining. More than half of his bio on the VCS Mining website 
concerned his ties to his sister and her husband. 44 

Not surprisingly, the deal provoked outrage in the Haitian senate. The mining concession was a 
sweetheart deal. For one thing, the royalties to be paid to the Haitian government were only 2.5 
percent, which mining experts noted at the time was “really low.” “Anything under five percent is just 
really ludicrous for a country like Haiti,” said mining royalties expert Claire Kumar. “You shouldn’t 
even consider it.” 45 

The episode resulted in a resolution by the Haitian parliament challenging the secrecy of the 
process and calling for a moratorium on new mining permits. The resolution passed the Haitian senate 
unanimously. 46 

VCS Mining is continuing to build on its mining concessions in Haiti. 

IVIeanwhile, connected businessmen continued to reap benefits from the reconstruction efforts. 

For contracts to remove debris in Port-au-Prince, USAID went with Washington-based CHF 
International. As Rolling Stone put it, CHF became “one of the largest USAID contractors in Haiti 
and enjoys a cozy relationship with Washington.” 47 

It turns out that the company’s CEO, David Weiss, had been the deputy US trade representative for 
North American affairs during the Clinton administration. (He was also a 2008 Hillary for President 
campaign contributor.) In addition, the corporate secretary of the board of directors is Lauri Fitz- 
Pegado, who was a protege of Clinton commerce secretary Ron Brown. Fitz-Pegado had served in a 
series of positions in the Clinton White House, including assistant secretary of commerce. 

CHF received particular scorn from journalists on the ground in Haiti. According to Rolling Stone , 
the firmoperated out of “two spacious mansions in Port-au-Prince and maintains a fleet of brand-new 
vehicles, [and] is generally considered one of the most ostentatious” groups working out of Haiti. 48 

US AID contracts also went to consulting firms like New York-based Dalberg Global 
Development Advisors, which was also an active participant in and financial supporter of CGI. In 
spring 2010 Dalberg received a $1.5 million contract to identify relocation sites for Haitians 
displaced by the quake from their homes and communities. 

US AID ’s inspector general reviewed the firm’s recommendations and found them generally sloppy 
and unusable. As Rolling Stone reported, “One of the sites they said was habitable was actually a 
small mountain. ... It had an open-sided pit on one side of it, a severe 100 foot cliff, and ravines. . . . 
It became clear that these people may not even have gotten out of their SUVs.” 49 

One early initiative pushed by both Bill and Hillary was to provide transitional housing for those 
left homeless by the earthquake. The plan was to give grants and funds to build approximately twenty 
thousand temporary shelters for $138 million. But nearly a year later, an April 19, 2011, audit by the 
USAID Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that only 22 percent of the shelters had been built 
and that many of those were “substandard.” 50 

The results were no better when it came to providing new permanent homes. 

In December 2010 Bill and Hillary approved a “new settlements program” that called for fifteen 
thousand homes to be built in and around Port-au-Prince. But by June 2013, more than two and a half 
years later, the GAO audit revealed that only nine hundred houses had been built. The goal was 
subsequently cut to twenty-six hundred. At the same time, the cost of the project almost doubled, from 
$53 million to $90 million. 

Even projects run through the Clinton Foundation and not the federal government achieved 
disastrous results. 

When Bill decided that the United States needed to secure temporary housing for Haitian 
schoolchildren (a legitimate priority), Clayton Homes approached the Clinton Foundation and offered 
to help. The company was still in trouble with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for 
sending thousands of bad trailers to the US Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. A class action brought 
against Clayton Homes and others was eventually settled. 51 

In Haiti the Clinton Foundation paid $4 million of private money for what were called “hurricane 
proof trailers” that were “structurally unsafe,” and in some instances were found to have high levels 
of formaldehyde, with insulation coming out of the walls. The fumes, mold problems, and stifling heat 
made students sick. Many trailers ended up abandoned because they were poorly designed and ill 
suited to the Haitian climate. 52 

From Chappaqua, New York, Bill dreamed up the idea of a housing expo in Haiti that would bring 
architects and design firms from around the world to create sustainable homes using composite 
materials. 53 The project was dubbed Building Back Better Communities (BBBC). Each builder 
erected a sample home for Haitians to live in. These buildings and designs were expected to be 
adopted for widespread use in the earthquake-ravaged country. But fourteen months later, “most of the 
model homes sat empty,” providing shelter for squatters and the occasional goat. 54 

“It was a waste of money with no respect for the builders,” Gabriel Rosenberg of GR Construction, 
a Haitian firm, said in a telephone interview. “We invested about 25,000 dollars. We expected to sell 
those houses.” 55 

“It was the biggest joke I’ve ever seen,” complained John Sorge, with the firm Innovative 
Composites International (ICI). “ft was a hoodwink to promote the government ... the whole Expo 
was a farce.” 56 

By far the largest and most ambitious project for Hillary and Bill was their plan to build a clothing 
factory in northern Haiti. The area had been untouched by the earthquake, but they authorized the use 
of US taxpayer funds for rebuilding to create what would be called the Caracol Industrial Park. 57 

The Clintons had actually been pushing this project for some time. Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s right 
hand at State, was “credited with leading the effort for more than a year,” wrote the Cleveland Plain 
Dealer , 58 Originally a straightforward plan for economic development, the project gained new 
momentum as a means to both uplift the Haitian economy and house homeless workers. In the end, the 
complex project required hundreds of millions in US taxpayer money and special legislation passed 
through Congress granting tariff- free access to US markets. 

Ostensibly designed for the benefit of the Haitian people, Caracol has shown mixed results. As we 
have already seen, the best intentions often go awry in a place like Haiti. One thing is clear, however: 

the most obvious beneficiaries of the deal were three family-owned companies with a long history of 
supporting the Clintons. 

To start things off, a major clothing manufacturer had to be induced to build a factory Sae-A, a 
South Korean textile company, was lured to Haiti with a State Department commitment of $124 
million for a power plant and basic infrastructure, as well as for employee housing. The Inter- 
American Development Bank promised another $100 million. The Haitian government gave Sae-A a 
fifteen-year break on taxes. Meanwhile, in the spring of 2010, Hillary, Bill, and Cheryl Mills pushed 
for and secured the passage of the Haiti Economic Lift Program (HELP), a law that would allow 
textiles to enter the United States from Haiti tariff- free. 

Construction then began. However, before the omelet could be made, a few eggs had to be broken. 
Three hundred sixty-six farmers, relatively prosperous by Haitian standards, were evicted from their 
land to make way for the factory. The earthquake didn’t get them — but the factory did. “We watched, 
voiceless,” Jean-Louis Saint Thomas, an elderly farmer, said. “The government paid us to shut us 
up.” 59 

The construction contract for employee housing went to a Minnesota-based firm called Thor 
Construction. In addition to the contract rate, the firm received “danger pay” and “hardship pay,” 
increasing its take by over 50 percent. Thor Construction executives, including the CEO, are heavy 
contributors to Democrats. 

The parameters of the job soon changed. The original estimate was that the worker houses would 
cost $8,000. But due to cost overruns, the price tag quickly jumped to $23,409. The original plan was 
to build twenty- five thousand homes. In the end, according to the GAO, little more than six thousand 
were constructed. 60 

In July 2012 Hillary and Bill showed up in Caracol for the factory’s grand opening, even as rubble 
still clogged the streets in the capital city of Port-au-Prince. 61 The Clintons were joined by actors 
Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, billionaire businessman Richard Branson, and fashion icon Donna Karan 
to celebrate the factory’s opening. Hillary touted it as a great day for Haiti. Bill teared up. 

For his part, Bill Vastine, a member of the USAID Shelter Team that established the project’s 
original parameters, was aghast at the results. “If the American people saw the cost of this, they’d say 
‘you’ve got to be out of your mind,”’ he told a reporter in 2014. 62 

Perhaps those happiest were the US retailers — all of whom enjoy long-standing connections with 
the Clintons — who would benefit from selling the low-cost products coming out of Caracol. 

These included GAP, whose chairman and CEO Robert Fischer sat on the Hillary for President 
finance committee. The Fischer family had been longtime Clinton financial supporters. 

Another big beneficiary: Target Stores, which was founded and is still controlled by the Dayton 
family. The Daytons have also been longtime Clinton financial supporters. 

Wal-Mart also received tariff- free clothing from the factory. Hillary had sat on the Wal-Mart board 
back when Bill was governor of Arkansas. While some Walton family members do not share the 
Clintons’ politics, several have written checks to a pro-Hillary superpac since the factory opened. 

Regrettably, Caracol has failed to live up to its hype. The project’s sponsors claimed that it would 
create sixty thousand jobs. The actual number: about three thousand. The daily wage for workers is 
two hundred gourdes, which is roughly five dollars. For workers at the factory this is obviously better 
than nothing. But it is hard to believe such meager results were justified at such great expense. 63 

In sum, little of the money that has poured into Haiti since the 2010 earthquake has ended up 
helping Haitians. And how that money was spent was largely up to Hillary and Bill. 

This fact has prompted two Haitian lawyers to petition Haiti’s Supreme Court of Auditors and 
Administrative Disputes to demand an audit of Bill Clinton’s tenure on IHRC. The lawyers, Newton 
Louis St- Juste and Andre Michel, have asked for information “to determine the relationship between 
the former Head of State William Jefferson Bill Clinton and the firms that benefited from contracts 
during and after his term as head of the IHRC.” 64 

In the meantime, the rubble-strewn streets of Port-au-Prince are still populated by those who saw 
their homes destroyed in 2010. These victims’ net worth hasn’t changed but that of the Clintons and 
their associates surely has. 


Quid pro Quo? 

O n December 9, 2009, the State Department beamed out a video message from Secretary of State 
Hillary Clinton. The occasion was “International Anti-Corruption Day” Seated in front of the 
camera, she spoke about the important fight against political corruption around the world and praised 
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) work combating bribery and 
graft. The OECD is an international body of the world’s largest economies. Hillary herself chaired 
the group in 2011, on its fiftieth anniversary. In the video, Hillary lauded OECD’s Anti-Bribery 
Convention as “a milestone in global efforts to encourage responsible and accountable governance.” 
She went on to declare that the United States “fully supports the OECD’s anti-corruption agenda.” 1 

Fighting corruption and bribery in the developing world was an important focus during Hillary’s 
tenure. As a State Department spokesman explained, she “elevated corruption as a major focus of 
U.S. foreign policy. She also has promoted the importance of international anti-corruption 
agreements, including the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.” 2 

The OECD Working Group on Bribery specifically explains that “individuals and companies can 
also be prosecuted when third parties are involved in the bribe transaction, such as when someone 
other than the official who was bribed receives the illegal benefit, including a family member, 
business partner, or a favorite charity of the official.” 3 

How does she reconcile her anti-corruption stance with the many transactions involving her and 
her husband that arguably present serious conflicts of interest, even in the best possible light? How 
can she maintain that her decisions were unaffected by the millions given to her husband and their 
family foundation, even if there were no explicit agreements? How does she not see herself as part of 
the problem? 

Based on the OECD’s definition of bribery, there does not need to be an explicit quid pro quo. As 
the US Sixth Circuit Court noted in a 2009 corruption case, a quid pro quo does not require “a 
particular, identifiable act” when the funds were transferred. “Instead, it is sufficient if the public 
official understood that he or she was expected to exercise some influence on the payor’s behalf as 
opportunities arose.” 4 Friends, money, and politics are a dangerous cocktail. The Clintons should 
know to avoid this kind of drinking while driving US policy. 

Large commitments have been made by foreign businessmen with records of making payments to 
government officials to gain influence. Gilbert Chagoury, for example, who has sponsored speeches 
by Bill and committed $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative, has a long history of association 
with corrupt transactions in Nigeria. Denis O’Brien, who has also arranged speeches and written 
checks to the Clinton Foundation, was implicated in enriching government bureaucrats in Ireland to 
help his cellular business. 5 

The Clintons themselves have a history of questionable financial transactions. During their first 
presidential campaign in 1992, concerns were raised about their position in a real estate development 
in Arkansas known as Whitewater. There was also the matter of Hillary’s miraculous profit from 
cattle futures, which turned a $1,000 investment into $100,000. No one ever proved that these 

transactions were illegal. But a cloud hovered over their heads and, when Bill became president, he 
and Hillary brought it with them to Washington. 

In Bill’s first term as president, as both he and Hillary faced myriad allegations concerning 
unethical conduct, his legal defense fund accepted an anonymous donation of $450,000 through a 
Little Rock restaurateur named Charlie Trie. Clinton and Trie were close friends. Shortly after the 
1992 election, Trie began channeling money to the legal defense fund and into the DNC’s so-called 
soft-money accounts for the president’s reelection. The DNC became so concerned that the money 
might be coming from China that it hired private investigator Terry Lenzner to investigate. 

As Lenzner later wrote, “I could see why they were concerned; red flags were obvious. For 
example, the money orders had different names on them, but the word ‘presidential’ was misspelled 
on all of them — in the exact same way and in the same handwriting.” 6 Lenzner discovered that many 
of these donations were from people who were making only $20,000 to $30,000 a year and could not 
possibly be the source of these large contributions. Accordingly, Lenzner recommended the DNC 
return the donations. The DNC agreed. But Bill initially refused. It was only after the cochairs of his 
legal defense fund (a former attorney general and a Catholic priest) both threatened to resign that the 
donations were sent back. 

Following the 1996 election, the DNC was forced to return some $2.8 million in illegal or 
improper donations, most of it from foreign sources. Of that amount, almost 80 percent was raised or 
contributed by Trie and another Clinton friend, John Huang. Like Trie, Huang had known Clinton for 
years and worked for the Lippo Group, an Indonesian conglomerate. Huang took a post as a DNC 
fundraiser and quickly set about soliciting large sums of money from foreign sources. Huang arranged 
for South Korean businessman John H. K. Lee to have dinner with President Clinton — in return for a 
$250,000 donation. 7 He also arranged for Yogesh K. Gandhi, who claimed to be related to Mahatma 
Gandhi, to meet in the White House with the president and be photographed being presented with an 
award — in exchange for $325,000. Both donations had to be returned after the stories became 
public. 8 

Meanwhile, more than one hundred “White House coffees” were held in 1995 and 1996 at which 
large-dollar contributors paid for face time with the president. White House officials initially denied 
that these were fundraisers, but schedules from Harold Ickes, the deputy chief of staff in the White 
House, referred to them as “political/fundraising coffees.” White House officials even tracked the 
“projected revenue” of these events, including who paid and how much. 9 Then there was the evidence 
that, for the right contribution, you could spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom 10 

The Clintons aren’t stupid people. They know the law and take pains to operate within it. Besides, 
corruption of the kind I have described in this book is very difficult to prove. We cannot ultimately 
know what goes on in their minds and ultimately prove the links between the money they took in and 
the benefits that subsequently accrued to themselves, their friends, and their associates. That said, the 
pattern of behavior I have established is too blatant to ignore, and deserves legal scrutiny by those 
with investigative capabilities that go beyond journalism. 

Over the last dozen years, the Clintons have been involved in hundreds of transactions (as private 
citizens and public officials) with foreign governments, foreign investors, and foreign corporations 
around the world. It appears from the Clinton Foundation donor list and the roster of those who have 
sponsored speeches that there is barely an oligarch, royal family, or foreign investor in trouble with 
the law that is not represented. 

As we saw earlier, four of the Clinton Foundation trustees have been charged or convicted of 

financial crimes. Is there another foundation anywhere in the world that has faced similar problems? 
More to the point, why would a former American president choose to associate with such dubious 

Hillary’s apparent involvement in these transactions is even more troubling. While Bill was a 
private citizen, Hillary was still a government official. Her tenures as a senator and as secretary of 
state are marked by an alarming pattern of large money flows: the sources of the funds, the amounts, 
and the timing were frequently suspect. Many payments occurred as Hillary was grappling with vital 
national security questions involving everything from uranium to the Keystone XL pipeline. 

In fact, the money flow did not slow down when Hillary became America’s chief diplomat. On the 
contrary, it accelerated , especially the funds from overseas. And the funds came from a collection of 
troubling sources: foreign governments, third world oligarchs, and foreign corporations. The biggest 
paydays came not from countries like Great Britain or Germany, but from countries and industries 
with cultures where bribery and corruption are common and occur on a massive scale. 

In March 2012 Hillary delivered remarks in the grand ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel in 
downtown Washington, DC. The occasion was a dinner for Transparency International, an 
international organization that fights corruption. Hillary spoke at length about how “sunlight [is] the 
best disinfectant” and declared that fighting corruption is an “integral part of national security.” 
Hillary said, “our credibility depends on practicing what we preach.” 11 

But as we’ve seen, the Clintons have failed to live up to their commitments to President Obama, the 
US Senate, and the American people to simply disclose the names of all Clinton Foundation major 
contributors. Multimillion-dollar foreign contributions have not been reported. Contributions of 
shares of stock in foreign companies that had business before the State Department were also not 
disclosed. Foreign corporations that poured in millions have been hidden from view. Moreover, the 
cases chronicled in this book are only the ones we know of. 

And when it comes to Bill’s speeches, the Clintons have often failed to fully disclose who is 
actually paying for the speeches. Why do the Clintons do this? Why do they put themselves again and 
again in positions that raise serious questions about their ethical conduct? 

Opinions run the gamut. Defenders claim that it is not about the money: Bill and Hillary don’t 
really care that much about it. That’s an odd argument. If wealth is not the goal, why charge six- figure 
speaking fees and pocket the money? Why not charge a minimal fee or donate the proceeds to charity? 

Money definitely appears to be a factor. The Clintons are just like many in politics: money carries 
serious weight. Gather enough weight and you can intimidate most people into not questioning how 
you got it. 

Indeed, as noted above, the Clintons have always been shamelessly transactional. During Bill’s 
tenure as governor of Arkansas, for example, it was Hillary who benefited the family financially 
through deals with those who wanted something from her husband. Her remarkable success in cattle 
futures comes to mind. James Blair, who was an outside counsel to Tyson Foods, set up her accounts. 
In the same period, Tyson was a beneficiary of several state actions. 12 

Most recently, of course, the roles have been reversed. Those seeking help from Hillary became 
the ones throwing money at Bill. Foreign money has flowed to the Clintons and their foundation from 
people and entities with intense personal interests in the political choices of the secretary of state. 
And in several instances that we have described, the evidence suggests that Hillary shifted course to 
the benefit of those providing the funds. 

Moreover, the latest game has been played not at the level of state or even national affairs, but on a 
global scale. The era of globalization has opened up a bonanza of opportunities for businessmen 

willing and able to cut resource extraction deals around the world. Many of these deals, as we have 
seen, are made in developing countries where civilized rules do not always apply and where the 
players involved are unsavory. 

The Clintons are perhaps the most politically sophisticated public figures of their generation. They 
know how things work in the corridors of power and around the world; they know that foreign 
governments are trying to i nfl uence American foreign policy; and they know that bribery is rampant 
around the world. They have numerous avenues for making money. Some of those avenues might not 
be as lucrative as giving a $700,000 speech in Nigeria, but they would be much cleaner. 

Even if nothing illegal occurred, one has to wonder about the political judgment involved. Surely 
the mere appearance of selling American power and influence to foreign interests should be enough to 
cause a former US president — and a possible future one — to steer well clear of such potentially 
embarrassing entanglements. “Bribery interferes with trade, investment, and development,” Hillary 
Clinton said at the OECD’s fiftieth-anniversary forum in 2011. “It undermines good governance and 
encourages greater corruption. And of course, it is morally wrong — and far too common.” 

On that we can all agree. 


Xhis investigative project required an extraordinary amount of in-depth research that included 
everything from reviewing Canadian tax records to Ukrainian shipping records. Because of the global 
reach of this project, it also required tracking down information from sources around the world. 
Because of the sensitive nature of this project, the researchers asked that their names not be included 
in the acknowledgments. I am nonetheless grateful for their professionalism, doggedness, and 
attention to detail. 

The Government Accountability Institute has benefited from terrific leadership in our little more 
than three years of existence. This includes our chairman and CEO Stephen K. Bannon, as well as our 
board of directors, Owen Smith, Ron Robinson, and Hunter Lewis. I want to say a special thanks to 
those who have supported our research over the past couple of years, which has offended both 
Republicans and Democrats in Washington. 

Love and gratitude always to my children, Jack and Hannah. You both mean the world to me. 

My family has been enormously supportive as I’ve walked through this complicated project. 
Thanks to my wife, Rhonda (to whom this book is dedicated); my mom, Kerstin Schweizer; as well as 
my family “up north”: Maria and Joe, Danny and Adam. Thanks, too, to Ava and Raquel. Welcome to 
the family! 

I’ve benefited from tremendous professional guidance and camaraderie over the course of my 
writing career. I appreciate my agents, Glen Hartley and Lyn Chu, for their sage advice and counsel, 
and was so pleased to be working again with Adam Bellow, a longtime friend, on this project. 

As always, the author alone is responsible for the contents of this book. 



1. Solomon, John, and Jeffrey H. Bimbaum, “Clinton Library Got Funds from Abroad,” Washington Post, December 15, 2007, 

2. Storace, Patricia, “Q&: How Bill Clinton Is Changing the World,” Conde Nast Traveler, August 15, 2007, 

3. “Bluman v. Federal Election Commission Case Files,” SCOTUShlog,]- 
election-com mis sion/. 

4. Von Oldershausen, Sasha, “Are the Clintons Trying to Duck Property Taxes in New York?” The Real Deal, June 17, 2014, 

5. Marquis, Christopher, “Clintons Buy $2.85 M illio n Washington Home,” New York Times, December 29, 2000, 

6. Van Natta, Don, Jr., Jo Becker, and Mike Mcintire, “In His Charity and Her Politics, Many Clinton Donors Overlap,” New York 
Times, December 19, 2007, 1 2/20/us/pol it ics/20clinton.html?pagewanted=all&_r= I &. 

7. Ibid. 

8. Ibid. 

9. Ibid. 

10. “Sorting Out the Pardon Mess,” New York Times , February 22, 2001, 

11. “Carter: Rich Pardon ‘Disgraceful,’” CBSNews, February 21, 2001, 

12. Berke, Richard L., “The Clinton Pardons: The Democrats; This Time, the Clintons Find Their Support Buckling from the Weight of 
New Woes,” New York Times , February 23, 2001, http://www.nytimes.corn/2001/02/23/us/clinton-pardons-democrats-this-time- 

13. Reid, Tim, “Donors List Raises Fears over Hillary Clinton Role as Secretary of State,” The Times (London), December 19, 2008, 

14. Mehta, Pratap Bhanu, “Charity at Home?” Indian Express, October 18, 2010, 

15. Hitchens, Christopher, “Why Are So Many Oligarchs, Royal Families, and Special-interest Groups Giving Money to the Clinton 

Foundation?” Slate, January 12, 2009, 

16. Calabresi, Massimo, “A Blip in Hillary Clinton’s Senate Lovefest: Bill’s Donations,” Time, January 14, 2009, 
http://content.time. com/time/na tion/article/0, 8599, 1 871526, 00.html. 

17. US Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Nomination of Hillary R. Clinton to be Secretary of State (2009), 8 (testimony of 
Richard Lugar). 

18. Ibid., 11. 

19. Ibid. 

20. Calabresi, “A Blip in Hillary Clinton’s Senate Lovefest.” 

21. US Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Nomination of Hillary R. Clinton to be Secretary of State (2009), 156 (testimony of 
Hillary Clinton). 

22. Ibid., 286. 

23. “Saudis, Indians among Clinton Foundation Donors f Economic Times, India Times, December 18, 2008, 

william-j-clinton- foundation. 

24. Allen, Jonathan, and Amie Parnes, II RC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 
Random House, 2014), 81. 

25. “The Clinton Foundation,” Washington Post, December 21, 2008, 

dyn/ c ontent/ artic le/2008/ 1 2/20/ AR2008 1 2200 1647. ht ml 

26. Ibid. 

27. Ghattas, Kim, The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power (New York: Picador, 
2013), 40-41. 

28. Jack, Andrew, “Charm Offensive Five Years after Leaving Office, Bill Clinton Is Applying His Famous Drive and Charisma to Talk 
AIDS in Africa,” Financial Times, August 19, 2006. 

29. Wiener, Jon, “Hillary’s Big Ethics Problem: Bill” The Nation, November 22, 2008, 


30. Leigh, David, “WikiLeaks Cables: US Keeps Uzbekistan President Onside to Protect Supply Line,” The Guardian, December 12, 
2010, http://www.theguardian.corn/world/2010/dec/12/wikileaks-us-conflict-over-uzbekistan. 

31. US Department of State, Embassy in Tashkent, “Uzbekistan: Rumors of Succession Planning, Government Reshuffling,” WikiLeaks, 
July 31, 2009, 

32. Stump, Scott, “Fashion Week Cancels Show from Dictator’s Daughter,”, September 9, 2011, 


1. Becker, Jo, and Don Van Natta Jr., “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton,” New York Times , January 31, 2008, 

2. “How to Make Money in Kazakhstan,”, October 14, 2011, 

3. World Health Organization, “Summary Country Profile For H1V/A1DS Treatment Scale-Up,” December 2005, UNAIDS Sub-Saharan Africa Fact Sheet, report, May 25, 2006, 

4. Nichol, Jim, “Kazakhstan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests,” Congressional Research Service, June 20, 2008, Foust, Joshua, “The Gilded Age of Asia,” Foreign Policy, April 11, 2013, Watt, Nicholas, “Kazakhstan’s Autocratic President Tells 
David Cameron: I Would Vote for You,” The Guardian, July 1, 2013, http://www.theguardian.eom/world/20l3/jul/0l/kazakhstan- 

5. Mayr, Walter, “Ex-Stepson Talks in Family Feud: Tapping Kazakstan’s Natural Resources,” Spiegel, May 19, 2009, 
http ://www.spiegeLde/internationaTworld/ex-stepson-talks-in-family-feud-the-long-arm-of-ka zakhstan-s-president-a-625720-2.html. 

6. Fove, James, “The Well-Connected Dictator,” Huffington Post, May 25, 2011, 
wellconnected-dictato_b_67423.html. Kilner, James, “Copper Tycoon Tops Kazakhstan’s Rich Fist,” The Telegraph, May 15, 2012, Buckley, Neil. 
“ENRC Founders Made Good in Kazakhstan,” Financial Times, May 3, 2013, 

7. Hoffman, Andy, “Renaissance Man,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 27, 2008, 
business/renaissance-man/articlel7988489/?page=all. Humphreys, Tommy, “Stop Taking Yourself so Seriously, Says Tycoon Frank 
Giustra,”, June 28, 2013, 

8. Cernetig, Miro, “Frank Giustra: A Man of Many Hats,” BC Business, November 5, 2011, 
giustra-a-man-of-many-hats. Smith, Elliot Blair, “Clinton Used Giustra’s Plane, Opened Doors for Deals (Correct),”, 
February 22, 2008, 

9. Canada’s Globe and Mail explained Giustra’s approach this way: “A mining promoter will buy a cheap ‘shell’ company already 
listed on the stock exchange, gather some friends to help fund the acquisition, and then, some time down the road, load it up with 
mining assets (remember the shuffle?) and do another share offering. These deals can be very lucrative, especially if you’re in the 
promoter’s ‘circle of trust.’” Hoffman, Andy, and Sinclair Stewart, “How to (Still) Get Rich in Mining,” Globe and Mail (Toronto),, May 19, 2007, 

10. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” 

11. Remnick, David, “The Wanderer: Bill Clinton’s Quest to Save the World, Reclaim His Fegacy — and Elect His Wife,” The New 
Yorker, September 18, 2006, -wanderer-3. 

12. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.” 

13. Jenkins, Iain, “Fun and Games with Penny Stocks,” New York Times , March 9, 1996, 
money/09iht-penns.t.html. McNish, Jacquie, The Big Score: Robert Friedland and the Voisey’s Bay Hustle (Toronto: Doubleday 
Canada, 1998), ix, 45. 

14. “Corporate Info,” Diamond Fields International Ftd., http://www.diamondflelds.eom/s/Management.asp (accessed 2014). Morais, 
Richard C., “Friends in High Places,” Forbes, August 10, 1998, 

15. Morais, “Friends in High Places.” 

16. McNish, The Big Score, ix, 40. 

17. Morais, “Friends in High Places.” 

18. McNish, The Big Score, ix, 45. 

19. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.” 

20. Hoffman, Andy, “Who Sold Key Asset to Uranium One?” Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 29, 2009, 

21 . Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.” 

22. Clinton, William J., “President’s News Conference with President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan,” American Presidency 
Project, February 14, 1994, 

23. Nichol, “Kazakhstan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests.” 

24. US Department of State, “Visits to the U.S. by Foreign Heads of State and Government — 1999,” http://2001- “Kazakh President, Clinton to Meet,” American Metal Market, December 21, 1999. Kazakhstan 
Goldfields Corp., “Open Letter to President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan,” December 20, 1999, 

25. Sidorov, Dmitry, “An Interview with Sergei Kurzin,” Forbes, April 20, 2009, 

26. “A Russian’s Underground Route to the Stock Market,” The Telegraph (UK), February 15, 2004. 

27. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.” 

28. Sidorov, “An Interview with Sergei Kurzin.” 

29. “Wall Street Journal Publishes Letter from Frank Giustra that Corrects Misinformation,” Reuters, May 01, 2008, 
http ://webcache.googleusercontent.cohttp7/webcache. 

30. Clinton Foundation, “Statement on Frank Giustra from President Clinton,” January 15, 2009, 

31. Clinton Foundation, “Statement on Frank Giustra from President Clinton.” 

After “Borat-gate” broke, certain points of fact and interpretation were vigorously disputed by both Frank Giustra and the 
Clintons. Their objections can be summarized into two categories. First, the agreement struck by Giustra and his partners was with 
private parties in Kazakhstan and not with the government in general or Kazatomprom in particular. Second, as Giustra and his 
partners had been working on the transaction for over a year inside Kazakhstan, they did not need President Clinton to complete 
the deal. 

The first objection is misleading in that it uses the answer to one question — did Giustra and his partners pay a private party for 
the right to min e uranium in Kazakhstan? While the answer is technically yes, this obscures two much more pertinent questions. 
First, did UrAsia enter into a commercial relationship with the Kazakh government through its state nuclear agency, 
Kazatomprom? And second, was the deal in its entirety contingent upon Kazakh government approval? The answer to those two 
questions is an unequivocal yes. What Giustra secured in 2005 were two joint ventures encompassing three uranium mining sites, 
each of which featured Kazatomprom as a commercial partner by UrAsia ’s own corporate filin gs. For at least one of the sites, 
the Kazakh government transferred the rights a mere five days after Clinton’s trip. Giustra et aL paid $350 m illio n for the rights to 
that site and one other (to the Betpak Dala LLP). Without that transfer of rights, Giustra would have had nothing to buy. 

The objection is more straightforwardly wrong for three other reasons. First, accounts of the deal given either before or 
without reference to its controversy treat it as a deal with the Kazakh government — and Kazatomprom in particular — from start 
to finish. This is true not only of Giustra et al.’s early 2006 victory lap in Canada’s Financial Post, but also a mining trade 
publication’s interview with Sergey Kurzin, with whom Giustra had done business in Kazakhstan, off and on, since the mid-1990s. 
Kurzin recounts that the deal started with a meeting he arranged for himself, Giustra, and other figures crucial to the deal with 
Mukhtar Dzhakishev, head of Kazatomprom. Second, in late May 2009 Dzhakishev was arrested and brought up on cri min al 
charges related to the UrAsia deal. By this time UrAsia’s successor company, Uranium One, had taken over the disputed 
holdings. Anxious to calm investors, Uranium One’s then president Jean Nortier stated in no uncertain terms that both UrAsia’s 
and Uranium One’s mining rights enjoyed explicit governmental approval: “UrAsia’s acquisition of these assets, as well as 
Uranium One’s subsequent acquisition of UrAsia, were completed in accordance with the requirements of Kazakh law, and both 
transactions were approved by the Kazakh authorities.” Third, UrAsia and Uranium One’s own corporate filin gs unequivocally 
demonstrate that any transfer of subsurface mineral rights in Kazakhstan must be approved by Kazkhstan’s Ministry of Energy 
and Mineral Rights (MEMR). Incidentally, MEMR’s head in 2005, Vladimir Shkolnik, later became head of Kazatomprom after 
Dzhakishev was arrested. Not long after, his son-in-law, Vadim Jivov, ascended to the board of Uranium One (he eventually 
became its president) while Giustra ’s good friend and Clinton Foundation donor Ian Telfer was chairman of the board. In any 
case, the key fact revealed by the evidence is not so much Kazatomprom’s commercial participation with UrAsia, but the 
Kazakhstan government’s complete authority over the company’s acquisition of mining rights and its subsequent operations within 
the country. There would have been no deal had Kazakh authorities failed to sign off on it. 

As to whether President Clinton’s participation was necessary to close the deal, consider the words of Gordon Keep, longtime 
Giustra associate and officer for UrAsia: “we had only six weeks to complete a fourteen-week deaL” By the time Clinton joined 
Giustra in Kazakhstan his friends at Canaccord and GMP Securities had raised $504 m illio n Canadian and put it on the line to 
capitalize the venture, a figure cited in the Canadian financial press as a first for such an enterprise. Stipulating Giustra’s 
commitment to global charity, it beggars credulity that an investor so experienced and shrewd with $504 million worth of credibility 
on the line, would have introduced President Clinton, a politician legendary for his ability to strike a deal, into the delicate 
negotiation’s closing moments if his presence was not integral to it. Kazakhstan’s dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, obviously had 
the power to kill the venture at whim, nor were Nazarbayev and Kazakhstan lacking for other prospective investors in uranium. 

Nazarbayev’s eagerness for bribes was well known, including, allegedly, from multibillion-dollar Western companies such as 
Chevron. What would he have expected from an effective, but comparatively small-time player such as Giustra? Furthermore, as 
discussed below, Clinton had something very real to offer Nazarbayev: an endorsement for the OSCE chairmanship, an honor that 
would have opened diplomatic and commercial doors in Europe otherwise closed to him. The Kazakh embassy posted notice of 
the endorsement on lin e the same day, a fact that speaks for itself. 

32. Stewart, Sinclair, and Andy Hoffman, “Uranium One Ensnared in Kazakh Scandal,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 27, 2009, 

33. Chapman, David, “Glowing Prospects for 6 Uranium Miners,”, April 17, 2012, asp?aid=Global-27436. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to 

34. US Department of State, “Kazakhstan: Business as Usual in the Uranium Mining Sector,” WikiLeaks, June 17, 2009, 

35. Seccombe, Allan, “Kazakh Move Stuns Uranium One,” MiningMx, May 27, 2009, http://www. min in g mx.c 0 m/news/energy/ka 7 akh- 
move-stuns-uranium-one.htm. See note 51. 

36. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.” 

37. Pan, Philip P., “Clinton Adviser Intervened with Uranium Deal, Ex-Kazakh Official Says,” Washington Post , February 24, 2010, 

38. In 2008 Dzhakishev was arrested by Kazakh security forces along with three other top Kazatomprom officials. It was part of a 
broader purge that included the head of the state-owned rail and energy companies. According to a leaked State Department cable, 
the arrests were “denounced as politically motivated” by nongovernment observers. As with so much in Kazakh politics, the events 
were imbedded with intrigue. Allegations were made that President Nazarbayev’s family actually owned part of Kazatomprom and 
was profiting from the deals. The arrests were allegedly designed to cover it up. Dzhakishev was also a longtime friend of 
Nazarbayev’s estranged son-in-law Rakhat Aliyev. In exile in Europe, Aliyev called Dzhakishev “a political detainee of Nazarbayev’s 

US Department of State, “Kazakhstan: Changes and Charges at Kazatomprom,” WikiLeaks, June 3, 2009, Pan, “Clinton Adviser Intervened to Help with Uranium DeaL” 

39. Ibid., and videos of Dzhakishev:; translation by Dr. David 

40. Lenzner, Robert, “Clinton Commits No Foul in Kazakhstan Uranium Deal,” Forbes, January 12, 2009, 

41. Bronson, Lisa, “Testimony on Cooperative Threat Reduction Program before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities,” March 10, 2004, 

42. Pan, “Clinton Adviser Intervened with Uranium DeaL” 

43. Ibid. Tufts University, “Board Members: Tim P hillip s,” 
“About Us,” Beyond Conflict, 

44. Embassy of the Repubhc of Kazakhstan, “Weekly News Bulletin,” September 7, 2005, http7/prosites- 
kazakhembus . home ste ad. c om / 0907 05 . htmL 

45. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining DeaL Financier Donated to Clinton.” 

46. NichoL “Kazakhstan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests.” 

47. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, “Pro mis es to Keep: Kazakhstan’s 2010 OSCE Chairmanship,” official 

transcript, July 22, 2008, 

Fuse Action=ContentRecords. Vie wDetail&ContentRecord_id=434&Region_id=0&Issue_id=0&ContentType=H.B&ContentRecordT) 

48. Signature Resources Ltd., “Signature Enters into Acquisition Agreement with UrAsia Energy Ltd,” September 20, 2005, 

49. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining DeaL Financier Donated to Clinton.” 

50. Ibid. 

51. Ibid. 

52. “Kazakhstan Timeline,” Knowledge Ecology InternationaL July 30, 2007, http7/ Kazakhstan News 
Bulletin,, 5, no. 52, December 7, 2005, http7/prosites-kazakhembus. 

53. Canadian System of Electronic Disclosures (SEDI), http7/www.sedLca: “Access Pubhc Filings,” “View Summary Reports,” 
“Insider Transaction Detail,” “Select ‘Insider Family Name,”’ “Search Tan Telfer,”’ “Select ‘Date of Transaction,”’ “Search 
‘January 1, 2000-present day,”’ “Urasia Energy.” Hoffman and Stewart, “How to (Still) Get Rich in Mining.” 

54. Moriarty, Bob, “Girls and Peak Gold: Wheaton River Jr.,”, October 7, 2007, (accessed November 2, 2014). 

55. Hoffman, Andy, “Ian Telfer: ‘I’m More of an Opportunist than a Visionary,”’ Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 27, 2011, 

vis ionary/ artic le 5 82085/?page=a 11. 

56. Kirby, Jason, “Uranium Blockbuster,” National Post (Canada), January 31, 2006, http7/ 


57. “Coming Soon! A New Uranium Stock,” Stocks, Uranium, Exchange, Symbol, November 7, 2005, 

http://socialize.morningstar.eom/NewSoeialize/forums/p/158426/2044148.aspx#2044148 (accessed November 2, 2014). “Uranium 
Mining and Exploration Post #2119,” Investors Hub, November 7, 2005, 
message_id=8398619 (Accessed November 02, 2014). See also “Uranium Blockbuster: Canaccord Adams-led IPO Financing of 
Uranium Producer UrAsia Energy Faced Language Barriers, a 14-hour Time Difference and a Drop in the Equity Markets. But the 
Deal Was Done,” Financial Post (Canada), January 31, 2006. 

58. Uranium One, ‘Uranium One and UrAsia Energy Announce Combination to Create Emerging Senior Uranium Company,” news 
release, February 12, 2007,, 

59. Lenzner, Robert, “Clinton Commits No Foul in Kazakhstan Uranium Deal,” Forbes, January 12, 2009, 

60. Becker, Jo, and Don Van Natta, Jr., “Ex-President, Mining Deal and a Donor,” New York Tunes, January 30, 2008, 
http ://www.nytimes. com/2008/01/3 l/us/po]itics/31donor.html?pagewanted=a]l&_r=l&. 

61. Despite initially denying the meeting, Giustra later recanted and “his aides explain that the manner in which the Times ’ fact-checking 
questions were asked was misleading and did not prompt them to recall the Chappaqua meeting.” Lenzner, “Clinton Commits No Foul 
in Kazakhstan Uranium Deal.” Becker, and Van Natta, “Ex-President, Mining Deal and a Donor.” 

62. Hamm, Nathan, “Joe Biden’s Letter to Nursultan Nazarbayev,” Registannet RSS, March 23, 2007, 

63. Becker and Van Natta, “Ex-President, Mining Deal and a Donor.” Cooper, Helene, and Peter Baker, “Clinton Vetting Includes 
Look at Mr. Clinton,” New York Times, November 16, 2008, 

64. Love, James, “The Well-Connected Dictator,” Huffington Post, October 6, 2007, 

wellconnected-dictato_b_67423.html. “Featured Attendees,” Clinton Global Initiative, 
pid= 1 263 . Official Site of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, September 26, 2007, 

65. Smith, “Clinton Used Giustra’s Plane, Opened Doors for Deals (Correct).” 

66. Uranium One, “Uranium One and UrAsia Energy Announce Combination to Create Emerging Senior Uranium Company.” 

Although reported by some as a buyout, it was actually a reverse merger. Frank Giustra and any other shareholders didn’t get 
bought out; they actually took control of the new company named Uranium One. Hill, Liezel, “Uranium One Wraps Up UrAsia 
Acquisition, Eyes London Listing,” Engineering News, April 23, 2007, 

“Immediately following the completion of the arrangement, Uranium One was owned approximately 60% by the former 
UrAsia shareholders and approximately 40% by the then-existing Uranium One shareholders.” Uranium One Inc Annual 
Information Form 2007, report, March 31, 2008, 
2008-annual- information-form. 

67. As Platts Nucleonics Week reports, “For accounting purposes, UrAsia Energy became a subsidiary of what was now called 

Uranium One, but in fact, it was UrAsia Energy shareholders who took control of the new company, according to documents filed 
with Canadian securities regulators.” Stellfox, David, “Uranium One’s Russian Deals Pushes Kazakh Probes to the Background,” 
Platts Nucleonics Week , June 18, 2009. As the London Stock Exchange reported, “each UrAsia common share will be exchanged 
for .45 Uranium One common shares. After the completion of the transaction, it is expected that current Uranium One shareholders 
will own approximately 40 percent of the combined company and current UrAsia shareholders will own approximately 60 percent.” 
‘UrAsia Energy Ltd Plans Merger with SXR Uranium,” London Stock Exchange Aggregated Regulatory News Service, February 17, 
2007. ‘UrAsia Energy Ltd (UUU),” FT Investegate/UrAsia Energy Ltd Announcements, February 12, 2007, 

http ://www.investegate. le.aspx?id=200702120726400752R. 

68. Uranium One, “Uranium One Completes Acquisition of Energy Metals,” press release, August 10, 2007, 

69. “Vadim Zhivov: ‘We Can Be Faced by a Deficit of Uranium,’” Rosatom, December 2, 2010, Rosatom Corp., “Russia to Acquire 17% 
Stake in Canada’s Uranium One (Update 1),” news release, June 19, 2009, ARMZ Uranium Holding Co., 

70. Wright, Lisa, “Clintons’ Canadian Buddy,” Toronto Star, February 3, 2008, 

71. “Contributor Information,” Clinton Foundation, 

72. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” 

73. Becker and Van Natta, “Ex-President, Mining Deal and a Donor.” Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” 

74. “Contributor Information,” Clinton Foundation, 
category=%24250%2C001+to+%24500%2C000 (accessed 2014). “Frank Edward Holmes,”, asp?personId=310588&ticker=GROW. 

75. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” “President Clinton and Business Leaders Launch Sustainable Development Initiative in the 
Developing World,” press release, Clinton Foundation, June 21, 2007, 
releases-and-statements/press-release-president-clinton-and-business-leaders-launch-sustainable-developm.htnrI “Management,” 
Endeavour Mining Corporation, http://www.endeavournrining.eom/s/Management.asp. 

76. “Clinton Foundation Donors,” Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2008, ‘Transactions (Page 2),” Haywood Securities Inc., aspx?view=tombstone&field=year&year=2005# (accessed 2014). 

77. “Clinton Foundation Donors,” Wall Street Journal . “Paul D. Reynolds,”, asp?personId=1467569&ticker=CF:CN. 

78. “President Clinton and Business Leaders Launch Sustainable Development Initiative in the Developing World.” Hoffman, 
“Renaissance Man.” Kirby, “Uranium Blockbuster.” 

79. “President Clinton and Business Leaders Launch Sustainable Development Initiative in the Developing World.” “Robert Melvin 
Douglas Cross MBA,”, 
personId=8052452&ticker=BNK:CN&previousCapId=355 1 1 785&previousTitle=B2GOLD%20CORP . 

80. “Global Metals & Mining Biographies,” BMO Capital Markets, (accessed 
2014). Uranium One, “Uranium One and UrAsia Energy Announce Combination to Create Emerging Senior Uranium Company.” 

81. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” Kirby, ‘Uranium Blockbuster.” 

82. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” “Sergey Vladimirovich Kurzin Ph.D.,”, asp?personId=13061746&ticker=OSU:CN. Sidorov, “An Interview 
with Sergei Kurzin.” 

83. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” “Board of Directors,” Uranium One, 
one/board-of-directors (accessed 2014). 

84. Clinton Foundation, “President Clinton and Business Leaders Launch Sustainable Development Initiative in the Developing World.” 

85. Wright, “Clintons’ Canadian Buddy.” 

86. Todd, Douglas, “Frank Giustra: Rescuing Global Capitalism from Itself,” Vancouver Sun , September 13, 2008, federated=l. 

87. Ibid. 


1. Strobef Warren, and Jonathan Landay, “Russia’s Dispute with Bush Could Strain G8 Talks,” Seattle Times, June 1, 2007, 
http://seattletinres.eom/htmTnationworld/2003730264_putin01.htmL Finn, Peter, “Putin Threatens Ukraine on NATO,” Washington 
Post, February 13, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.corn/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021201658.htmL Goldgeier, 
James, “The ‘Russia Reset’ Was Already Dead; Now It’s Time for Isolation,” Washington Post, March 2, 2014. 

2. Lowry, Rich, “The Russian Reset to Nowhere,” National Review Online, March 7, 2014, 

3. Mankoff, Jeffrey, “The Russian Economic Crisis,” Council on Foreign Relations, Special Report no. 53 (April 2010), 
http :// www . google . c om/url? 


4. Gornostayev, Dmitriy, “Clinton ‘By Far Not the Worst’ for U.S. Secretary of State,” Novosti Press Agency, November 23, 2008, 

5. Ibid. 

6. Owen, Matthews, “How Obama Bought Russia’s (Expensive) Friendship,” Newsweek, June 24, 2010. 

7. Matthews, Owen, “Putin Backs a Major Thaw in Russian Foreign Policy,” Newsweek, June 12, 2010, 

8. Mankoff, “The Russian Economic Crisis.” Aslund, Anders, and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “Why It’s in the US Interest to Establish 
Nomral Trade Relations with Russia,” Peterson Institute for International Economics (2011), 

9. “Atomic Castling: Kre mlin Makes First Moves to Consolidate Nuclear Sector,” Russian Life, May/June 2006. 

10. Weir, Fred, “Russia Plans Big Nuclear Expansion,” Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 2007. 

11. Paxton, Robin. “Russia Looks beyond U.S. to Conquer Uranium Markets,” Renters, December 10, 2009, 

12. Rosatom, “Nuclear Weapons Complex,” page published April 19, 2010, 

13. Sinres, Dimitri K., “Russia’s Crisis, America’s Complicity,” National Interest, Winter 1998. 

14. Grigoriadis, Theocaris, “Nuclear Power Contracts and International Cooperation: Analyzing Innovation and Social Distribution in 
Russian Foreign Policy,” in Responding to a Resurgent Russia: Russian Policy and Responses from the European Union and 

the United States, edited by Vino Aggamal and Kristi Govella (New York: Springer, 2012), 
http://link. springer, com/book/ 1 0. 1 007%2F978- 1 -4419-6667-4. 

15. Tran, Mark, “Iran to Gain Nuclear Power as Russia Loads Fuel into Bushehr Reactor,” The Guardian, August 13, 2010, 

16. “Russia Uranium Plans May Include N. Korea,” UPI, March 29, 2007, 

Resources/2007/03/29/Russia-uranium-plans-may-include-N-Korea/UPI-23571175193174/. Rosatom, “Russia Will Build a NPP and 
Research Reactor in Venezuela,” press release, October 15, 2010, ghlig hts/f718748044.52bdaa90e3b265d4d.5340b. Jagan, Larry, “Myanmar Drops a Nuclear 
‘Bombshell,’” Asia Times, May 24, 2007, Khlopkov, Anton, and 
Dmitri Konukhov, “Russia, Myanmar and Nuclear Technologies,” Center for Energy and Security Studies, June 29, 2011, World Nuclear Association, “Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries,” October 

17. US Department of State, Embassy in Brussels, “Russia Flexes Muscles on Ukraine Nuclear Fuel Supply,” unclassified memo, 
WikiLeaks, October 15, 2009, 

18. Medetsky, Anatoly, “Rosatom Gets $465M to Buy Uranium Assets,” Moscow Times, December 23, 2009, 

19. US Department of State, Embassy in Astana, “Kazakhstan: Russian Hand in Kazatomprom Drama?” unclassified memo, 
WikiLeaks, December 22, 2009, 

20. Humber, Yuriy, and Maria Kolesnikova, “Russia to Acquire 17% Stake in Canada’s Uranium Ore,”, 

21. Barber, D. A., “Hot Rocks: Hidden Cost and Foreign Ownership of ‘Clean’ Nuclear Fuel Emerging,” Huffington Post, March 30, 
2010 . 

22. Fahys, Judy, ‘Uranium Company Deal Nearly Done,” Salt Lake Tribune, December 13, 2010, 

23. Medetsky, “Rosatom Gets $465M to Buy Uranium Assets.” 

24. Dombey, Daniel, and Isabel Gorst, “Putin Vexes US over Iran Nuclear Power,” Financial Times, March 18, 2010, 

25. Kosharna, Olga, “Nuclear Cooperation with Ukraine Proceeding According to Russia’s Plan,” Zerkalo Nedeli (Ukraine), October 

26. See Canadian Charities reporting; for each year, follow the “Full List,” Section C.3, Qualified Donees Worksheet at http://www.cra- 


27. “Clinton Foundation Donors,” Wall Street Journal Online, December 18, 2008, 

28. “Qualified Donees — Fernwood Foundation — 2009,” Canada Revenue Agency, http://www.cra- 




eng.action%253Fk%253DFernwood%252BFoundation%2526amp%253Bs%253Dregistered%2526amp%253Bp%253Dl%2526amp 0 /c 

29. For the reporting periods of March 31, 2009, to March 31, 2012, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative functioned as a 

pass-through to the Clinton Foundation. For each of these years, the average ratio of charitable donations to total expenditures was 
0.88, thus 88 cents of every dollar given to CGSGI went to the Clinton Foundation. The ratio was significantly lower in 2013, but even 
in that year, 100 percent of monies donated went to the Clinton Foundation, which is true of all years discussed. These figures are 
obtained by comparing figures from Form T3010’s Schedule 2 and Schedule 6 (Lines 5000-5010) for the Clinton Giustra Enterprise 



30. “Qualified Donees — Femwood Foundation — 2010.” 

31. “C lint on F oundation D onors . ” 

32. US Global Investors Funds — Form N-Q, report, May 25, 2011, http://pdf.secdatabase.eom/714/0001003715-ll-000272.pdf. “Our 
Team,” U.S. Global Investors, 

33. “Our Team.” 

34. See, for example, the Endeavour Financial Corporation Investor Presentation, January 2009, p. 14. 

35. See “Arrangement Agreement between SRX Uranium One Inc. and Urasia Energy Ltd.,” February 11, 2007. 

36.; translation by Dr. David Meyer. 

37. “Uranium One Signs Credit Agreement and Provides Operational Update,” Market News Publishing, July 2, 2008, 

38. Terentieva, Alexandra, “Mike Hitchen On lin e: I On Global Trends,” I On Global Trends, March 31, 2010, 

39. “Where Eight Renowned Investors Think Commodity Prices Are Going,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 20, 2013, 
commodity-prices-are-going/article 11435677/ (accessed 2014). Hoffman, Andy, and Sinclair Stewart, “How to (Still) Get Rich in 
Mining,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 19, 2007,, 

40. Uranium One, Inc., ‘Uranium One to Acquire Two More Kazakh Mines from ARMZ and to Pay Special Dividend to Minority 
Shareholders of at Least US$1.06 per Share,” news release via Canada Newswire, June 8, 2010; see Canadian System for Electronic 
Document Analysis and Retrieval (Sedar), Search Public Database. 

41. Uranium One, Inc., “Notice of Special Meeting of Shareholders and Management: Information Circular for a Special Meeting of 
Shareholders to Be Held on August 31, 2010, Relating to, among Other Things, a Related Party Transaction between JSC 
Atomredmetzoloto Its Affiliates and Uranium One, Inc.,” August 3, 2010, p. 40. See SEDI, “Uranium One 2010-2011, Insider 
Transaction Detail.” 

42. Bouw, Brenda, “Russia Boosts Stake in Uranium One,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 8, 2010, federated=l. “The Global 

Intelligence Files — Russia 100628,” WikiLeaks, May 29, 2013, 

43. “6.3 Interaction with Uranium One, Inc.,” JSC Atomredmetzoloto, 201 1 Annual Report, 45. 

44. “Russian Uranium Giant ARMZ Now Set to Control 50 percent of US Uranium Output,” Australian Uranium News, December 6, 

20 1 0, http://australianuraniumquicksearch. blogspot. com/20 1 0/ 12/russian-uranium-giant-armz-now-set-to. html. 

45. ARMZ Uranium Holding Co., “ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. Announces Acquisition of 51% Interest in Uranium One Inc.,” news 
release, June 8, 2010,, Saunders, Doug, “Russian Takeover of Uranium One 
a Benefit, Execs Say,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 27, 2010, http://www.theglobeandmaiLcorn/globe-investor/russian-takeover- 
of-uranium-one-a-benefit-execs-say/article 1389805/. 

46. Finley, Bruce, “Russian Company Seeks Control of Canadian Uranium-mining Firm Operating in Rockies,” Denver Post, October 
20, 2010, http://www.denverpost.eom/ci_16382080#ixzz32qCwALO. 

47. “Krem lin Submits Bill to Turn Rosatom into All-encompassing State Nuclear Corporation,”, October 4, 2007, 

nuc lear-c orporation. 

48. US House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Ros-Lehtinen, Bachus, King, McKeon Send Letter to Geithner 

Opposing Russian Takeover of U.S. Uranium Processing Facility,” October 6, 2010, 

http:// archive s . republic ans . fore igna ffairs . house . gov/ news/ story/? 1618. 

49. Fugleberg, Jeremy, “Russia Can’t Export Wyoming Uranium, Nuclear Regulators Tell Barrasso,” Casper Star-Tribune Online, 

March 29, 2011, 

barrasso/article_501 8f8f8-c59a-5e lb-9401 -cOl 9cd6a8625.html. 

50. Harvey, Cole J., “The U.S. -Russian Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation,” NTI: Nuclear Threat Initiative, June 22, 2010, 

51. Congressman Ed Markey’s Office, “Markey & Fortenberry Introduce Resolution of Disapproval of Proposed Nuclear Deal,” news 
release, Ed Markey Congress Website, May 25, 2010, 

52. Bleizeffer, Dustin, “Company: Uranium Won’t Go to Russia, Iran,” Billings (Montana) Gazette, September 28, 2010, 
ba2c -00 1 c c4c 002e 0. html. 

53. “Response to Request for Additional Information,” Donna Wiehers to Keith McConnell, October 18, 2010, 

http ://pba dupws . nr c . gov/ doc s/ML 1 029/ML 1 0294043 5 . pdf. 

54. Fugleberg, Jeremy, “Wyoming Mining Officials Tout Technology, Safety, Exports,” Star-Tribune (Caspar, Wyoming), January 7, 


55. US International Trade Commission, ‘Uranium from Russia,” Investigation No. 731-TA-539-C (Third Review), February 2012, 

56. Helrner, John, “Putin Urges US Help for Oligarchs,” Asia Times Online, March 25, 2010, 

57. “Salida Capital Foundation — Quick View,” Canadian Revenue Agency, http://www.cra- 



58. “Qualified Donees — Salida Capital Foundation,” Canadian Revenue Agency, http://www.cra- 1 0form22gifts-eng.action?b=835572066RR000 1 &fpe=20 1 1-12- 


eng.action%253Fk%253DSalida%252BCapital%2526amp%253Bs%253Dregistered%2526amp%253Bp%253Dl%2526amp%253Bb 0 / 

59. Salida ’s chief business partner in Ukraine is Robert Bensh, who served as an adviser to Boyko, who served as energy min ister and 
later deputy prime minis ter under President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych fled the country for Moscow during the Ukrainian 
uprising in 2014, and was granted Russian citizenship by Vladi mir Putin. Salida and Bensh are involved in at least two energy ventures 
in the Ukraine including CUB Energy and EastCoal. For quotes on Boyko see: 
id=06K YI V43 1 3 & q=boyko% 20kre rnlin. 

60. Rosatom, “Public Annual Report,” news release,, 
P dfs/2013/358637c2a26b8a36867a5bf7be2dl 793.pdf. 

61. The Salida Capital mentioned in the Rosatom report is owned under a Ukrainian subsidiary Energomashspetsstal, a heavy machine 
company that produces industrial metal castings for the nuclear industry. The Salida Capital Foundation’s approximately $2.9 milli on in 
donations to the Clinton Foundation, starting in 2010 and lasting through 2013, is directly lin ked to the the Canadian hedge fund Salida 
Capital Corp., which does business out of the second floor of the CIBC building in downtown Toronto. Its principals at the time were 
executives with a history in Canadian mining finance. Salida’s founder, Danny Guy, was listed in 2009 as an official partner, along 
with Sergey Kurzin, of the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. In 2011 Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear agency that had 
acquired a controlling stake in Uranium One, began including a “Salida Capital Corp.” in its list of subsidiaries. Other Rosatom 
documents traced the company in question to Panama City, Panama. 

On October 3, 2006, Blumont Capital Corporation, which was registered in Canada, announced a new investment initiative with 
several other Canadian-based hedge funds. One of those funds was Salida Capital Corporation of Ontario. Blumont’ s principal, 
Veronika Hirsch, and Salida’s principal, Danny Guy, were both long-standing figures in the world of Canadian minin g finance. 
Both of them were involved in bringing investors to Diamond Fields, the Canadian-based company that explored for diamonds in 
Arkansas during Bill Clinton’s governorship. This is the same Diamond Fields in which Frank Giustra’s Yorkton Securities 

On October 4, 2006, papers were filed with the Panamanian Division of Corporations for a Salida Capital Corp. On November 
2, 2006, this entity was officially registered as a corporation in Panama. The very same day, a company called Blumont Capital 
was registered in Panama by the same law firm, with the exact same board of directors. In fact, two other firms, both 
corresponding to Canadian investment entities with long-standing ties to Canadian minin g finance were also registered the same 
day, by the same law firm, with the same board of directors. One of the Panamanian companies was First Leeward Investments. 
It just so happens that a Leeward Investments Company, headed by the colorful Matthew Brendan Kyne, is registered on the 
same floor as Salida Capital in Toronto’s CIBC building. The other Panamanian firm. New Thornh ill Investments, corresponds to 
the Canadian-based Thornh ill Investment Funds, run by the perhaps even more colorful Karleris Sarkans. Sarkans, whose book on 
international negotiations details his experiences “being held down at knifepoint and gunpoint by Russians,” was sued in 
Massachusetts in 2004 for investment fraud. Specifically, he was accused of investing in the Russian bond markets in 1997, when 
he had specifically promised an investor that he had liquidated his position in the Russian market. The investor lost well over a 
m illio n dollars. The action resulted in a default judgment against him . 

Curiously, Salida Capital Panama has its own Ukrainian connection. Throughout 2008 Salida Capital Panama was used by the 
Eastern Ukrainian company Energomashspetsstal (EMSS) to import heavy machinery from China and the Czech Republic. EMSS 
makes castings and other large steel structures for mining and nuclear power plants. That same year a notorious Ukrainian 
oligarch and politician named Andriy Klyuev appropriated Ukrainian state funds to EMSS for “capital improvements.” EMSS was 
at that time 80 percent owned by the Industrial Union of Donbass (IUD). Ukrainian media reports as well as academic papers 
associate IUD with one of eastern Ukraine’s most powerful men, Serhiy Taruta. Taruta’s business dealings were on the ropes in 
January 2010. According to reports, Vladi mir Putin arranged considerable financial support for them. It is against this background 
that Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear agency, as it successfully sought CFIUS approval to purchase a controlling stake in Uranium 
One, acquired EMSS on or about December 9, 2010. Throughout 2010 Salida Capital Canada’s newly created charity, the Salida 
Capital Foundation, received four separate infusions of money totaling $3,376 m illio n (Canadian). That year, Salida’s CEO, 
Courtenay Wolfe, would join Bill Clinton onstage at the Clinton Global Initiative annual dinner to announce a charitable partnership, 
and its foundation would give to the Clinton Foundation almost $800,000 of what would become approximately $2.9 million by 
2013. According to Canadian government records, that money is over 80 percent of all donations ever given by Salida’s own 

By June 2011 Rosatom’s corporate documents listed a “Salida Capital Group, Inc.; Panama City, Panama,” whose board 

contact information matched that of the Salida Capital Corp. registered in Panama in November 2006. When Rosatom published 
its annual report in 2012, it listed a Salida Capital Corp that it held “outside of the consolidated budget perimeter” through “PJSC 
Energomashspetsstal” or EMSS. 

It’s essential to understand that Salida Capital Corp. of Canada began publicly to do business in eastern Ukraine in the spring 
of 2010. It invested first in a natural gas play that would become a Canadian registered firm called Cub Energy and then in a coal 
operation in the Donbass region that became known as EastCoaL Both firms are well within the same financial, and therefore in 
Ukraine, political orbit. In this context, the creation of the Salida Capital Foundation at the end of 2009 and its generous donations 
to the Clinton Foundation demand the utmost scrutiny. 

One final question must be asked: why Panama? Panama is perhaps less known than the Cayman Islands as a vehicle for 
questionable financial dealings, but its virtues are well known by offshoring practitioners. Canadian law in particular allows for the 
creation of private investment foundations, which can hold international business company stock, but which function essentially as 
nonprofit corporations. Services exist in Canada to facilitate creating corporations in Panama that mir ror and work with Canadian 
private investment foundations. The goal of such arrangements, naturally, is to shield assets from taxation and provide anonymity 
for the beneficiaries. The same law firm created not only Salida Capital Corp. of Panama, but simultaneously Blumont Capital 
Panama, whose Canadian counterpart was just beginning a new investment venture with Salida Canada. It also created the other 
two firms with equally curious Canadian parallels. The firm, as it so happens, specializes in creating just such private investment 

Was a Private Investment Foundation created for Salida Canada and its management and investors, who at some point came 
to include the Russian government who had business before the very secretary of state to whose charitable foundation Salida ’s 
own charity was even then making donations? Since my inquiries to both Salida and Lombardi-Aguilar went unanswered, I cannot 
say for sure. I can only say the facts speak eloquently for themselves and demand an answer from the only parties who can give 
an answer. 

In 2015 Salida Capital Canada changed its name to Harrington GlobaL 

62. Strickland, Ken, and Andrea Mitchell, “Clinton, Obama ‘Memo of Understanding,”’ NBC News, December 18, 2008, 

63. “Clinton Surpasses $75 M illio n in Speech Income after Lucrative 2010,” CNN Political Ticker RSS, July 11, 2011, 

64. “William Jefferson Clinton Speeches, 2001-2012,”, 


65. “Former Russian Spy Recalls the Golden Age of Espionage,” The Telegraph (London), January 2, 2011, and; 
spy-re c a lls-the -golden-age -of-e spionage . htrnL 

66. Low, Valentine, “My Old Friend the KGB Spy,” Evening Standard (London), December 30, 2002. 

67. Weiss, Michael, “Moscow’s Long, Corrupt Money Trail,” Daily Beast, March 22, 2014, 

68. Renaissance Capital, “Uranium One: Company on Schedule; Market Lags,” May 27, 2010, 
id= 10956. 

69. “Burn after Reading: Russian Spies in America,” The Economist, June 29, 2010,; Smith, Ben, “Clinton Friend Was Spy’s Target,” Politico, 
June 29, 2010, 

70. “Spies Assigned to Gather Intel on U.S. Nuke Strategy for Russia, FBI Says,” NTI, June 29, 2010, 

71. Levy, Clifford J., and Ellen Barry, “Putin Criticizes U.S. for Arrests of Espionage Suspects,” New York Times , June 29, 2010, 

72. Soltis, Andy, “Soviet-style ‘Red’ Whine,” New York Post, June 30, 2010, 

73. Baker, Peter, “The Mellowing of Willia m Jefferson Clinton,” New York Times , May 26, 2009, 

http://www.nytimes.eom/2009/05/3 l/magazine/31clinton-t.htnh?pagewanted=ah. 

74. “Bill Clinton Offers Rare US Praise for Putin,” RIA Novosti, September 25, 2009, 

75. Anderson, Derek, “Uranium Agreement Faces New Objections from U.S.,” St. Petersburg (Russia) Times, October 12, 2010, 

76. “Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate: Briefing by Representatives from the Departments and 
Agencies Represented on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to Discuss the National Security 
Implications of the Acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Company by Dubai Ports World, and Government- 
owned and -controhed Firm of the United Arab Emirates,” February 23, 2006, 6, 
109shrg32744/html/CHRG- 1 09shrg32744. htm. 

77. “Press Release: Hillary Clinton Promotes Plan for Strong Defense and Good Jobs in Indiana,” American Presidency Project, April 
12, 2008, 

78. “Facing CFIUS: Better Safe Than Sorry — Law360 Law360, July 5, 2012, http://www. 

better-safe-than-sorry. McConnell, Will, “Feds Query Another Chinese Mining Deal near TOPGUN,” TheDeal, May 23, 2012, “US Bars China Wind Farm 
Deal on Security Grounds,” Space Daily, September 28, 2012, Diye, Kelley, “CFIUS Rejects 
Chinese Acquisition in U.S.,” news release, April 5, 201 1, 

79. “6.3 Interaction with Uranium One, Inc.,” JSC Atomredmetzoloto, 201 1 Annual Report, 44. 

80. Uranium One, “Uranium One Enters into Definitive Agreement with ARMZ for Going Private Transaction for CDN$2.86 per Share 
in Cash,” news release, January 14, 2013,, 

81. Gutterman, Steve, “U.S. -Russian Civilian Nuclear Deal Boosts ‘Reset,’” Reuters, January 12, 2011, 1/01/1 l/us-russia-usa-nuclear-idUSTRE70A5LB201 10111. 

82. Melbye, Scott (executive vice president — marketing, Uranium One), ‘Uranium One’s Experience in Kazakhstan,” Kazatomprom 
Representative Office Opening, Washington, DC, slideshow presentation, May 2013,’s%20Experience%20in%20Kazakhstan.pdf. 

83. Baker, Matt, “Moscow’s American Uranium,” Politico, October 18, 2013, 

american-uranhim-98472.html. “Regarding the Willow Creek, Moore Ranch, Jab & Antelope, Ludeman Projects and Well Logging 
Equipment,” Donna Wiehers to Andrew Persinko and Roberto J. Torres, January 29, 2013, 

84. “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World,” Pravda, January 22, 2013, 
2013/12355 l-russia_nuclear_energy-0/. 

85. “Rosatom Spares No Expense to Buy Out Canada’s Uranium One,” RT, January 14, 2013, 1 00- 

86. Baker, “Moscow’s American Uranium.” 

87. Flelms, Kathy, “Navajo Protests Canadian-Russian Uranium Mine at Big Boquillas,” Gallup Independent (New Mexico), May 21, 

88. Horoshko, Sonja, “The Navajo Nation Nixes Access for Uranium Mi nin g,” Four Corners Free Press (Colorado), June 1, 2013, 


1. Baruah, Arnit, “India a Partner in Obama’s N-efforts?” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), April 6, 2009, 

2. Nayar, K. P., “Time to Tell a Prophetic Secret,” The Telegraph (Calcutta), December 24, 2004, 

http://www . te le graphindia . c om / 1 04 1 224/asp/ nation/ story_4 1 69260. asp. 

3. Sen, Chanakya, “A Review of Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb by Strobe Talbott,” Kashmir Herald, 
December 2004/January 2005, 

4. Krepon, Michael, “Looking Back: The 1998 Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Tests,” Arms Control Today , Arms Control Association, 
May 2008, Diamond, John, The CIA and the Culture of Failure: U.S. 
Intelligence from the End of the Cold War to the Invasion of Iraq (Stanford, CA: Stanford Security Series, 2008), 268. Richey, 
Bilf “Early Report 5/15: Indian Nuclear Test: All Eyes on Pakistan’s Response,” Foreign Media Reaction Daily Digest (US 
Information Agency), May 15, 1998, 

5. Sen, Canakya, “Two Villages and an Elephant,” Asia Times (Hong Kong), December 16, 2004, 

6. Clinton, Hillary, “Remarks of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton at a Special Event at the UN Social Summit,” UN Social Summit, 
Denmark, Copenhagen, March 6-12, 1995, 

7. Clinton, Hillary, “Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2007, 

8. Federation of American Scientists, “Nomination of Hillary R. Clinton to Be Secretary of State,” January 13, 2009, 
http:// fas. org/irp/congress/2009_hr/hiUary. html. 

9. “Clinton’s India Connection,” Tunes of India (Mumbai), August 24, 2003, 
Tndia-connection/articleshow/1 44077. cm s . 

10. “Sant Singh Chatwal: Rise and Rise of an American Punjabi Hotelier,” Sify Finance, n.d., 

11. Port, Bob, and Edward Lewine, “Donor Gives Hillary a Soft S2 1 OG,” New York Daily News, November 3, 2000, 

12. Haniffa, Aziz, “Arnar Singh Gave Millions to Clinton Foundation,” Rediff India Abroad, December 19, 2008, 

13. Venugopal, Arun, “South Asians Lean to Clinton ... or Obama,” WNYC News, February 4, 2008, 

14. Gurley, George, “Vikranr Chatwal Turban Cowboy,” New York Observer, November 18, 2002, 


15. Nelson, Dean, ‘‘Hillary Clinton’s Playboy Fundraiser Arrested over Heroin and Cocaine,” The Telegraph (UK), April 5, 2013, 
cocaine. htnrl. 

16. Sherman, William, “Tax Deadbeat Is Livin’ Large: Clinton’s Buddy Owes City $2.4M,” New York Daily News, November 24, 2002, 

17. Ibid. 

18. Solomon, John, and Matthew Mosk, “When Controversy Follows Cash,” Washington Post, September 3, 2007, 

19. Port and Lewine, “Donor Gives Hillary a Soft $210G.” 

20. “Sant Singh Chatwal: Rise and Rise of an American Punjabi Hotelier.” 

21. US Department of State, Embassy in New Dehli, “Political Bargaining Continues Prior to Key Vote in Parliament,” WikiLeaks, July 
17, 2008, “Sant Chatwal Says WikiLeaks Allegations 
Baseless,” Deccan Herald (India), March 18, 2011, http://www.deccanherald.eom/content/146770/F. 

22. Chakraborty, Tapas, “Clinton First, Sick Kids Later — Mulayanr Woos Dollars as Rahul Visits Death Zone,” The Telegraph — 
Calcutta, September 8, 2005, 

23. Haniffa, “Anrar Singh Contributed M illio ns to Clinton Foundation.” 

24. “Can Obama Make India an Ally?” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), October 30, 2010. 

25. “Indian ‘Cash for Votes’ MP Anrar Singh Freed on Bail,” BBC News, September 15, 2011, 

26. Chakraborty, “Clinton First, Sick Kids Later.” 

27. Aron, Sunita, “Clinton, Romance and All That ...” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), September 7, 2005. 

28. Ibid. 

29. “Rural Health Mission Launch Today,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), September 6, 2005. 

30. “Clinton Visit: Celebs Show Has Just Begun, Says Amar,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), September 10, 2005. 

31. Dutt, Ela, “The World Cannot Do without Muslims, and Mus lim s Cannot Do without America: Singh,” News India-Times (New 
York), October 21, 2005. 

32. Ibid. 

33. Ibid. 

34. “Amar Singh Makes Huge Donation to Clinton Foundation,” Tunes of India (Mumbai), December 18, 2008, 

35. Bagchi, Indrani, “. . . But May Slow Down N-deal, Doha Round,” Times of India (Mumbai), November 9, 2006, 

36. Haniffa, Aziz, “Indian-American Community Upset with Hillary,” Rediff June 30, 2006, 

37. Mcintire, Mike, “Indian-Americans Test Their Clout on Atom Pact,” New York Times , June 4, 2006, 

38. Gerstein, Josh, “Clinton Taps Newly Active Indian Donors,” New York Sun , June 12, 2007, 

39. Srivastava, Siddharth, “India: Wheeling and (Nuclear) Dealing,” Asia limes Online, July 6, 2006, 

40. “India Inc. Gives Millions to Clinton Foundation,” Business Standard News (India) December 20, 2008, http7/www. business- 
standard. c om / artic le/e c onomy-policy/ india -inc -give s - milli ons -to-clinton-foundation- 1081 2200 101 2_ 1 . htnrl. 

41. Prashad, Vijay, “What Did Hillary Clinton Do?” Counterpunch (blog), March 10, 2009, 

42. Talbott, Strobe, Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006), 

43. “Foreign Policy Brain Trusts: Clinton Advisers,” Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounder, June 20, 2008, 

44. Weiss, Leonard, “India and the NPT,” Strategic Analysis 34, no. 2 (March 2010): 255-71, doi:10. 1080/09700160903537856. 

45. Markey, Edward J., and Ellen O. Tauscher, “Don’t Loosen Nuclear Rules for India,” New York Times, August 19, 2008, 
http://www . nytime s . c om/2008/ 08/20/ opinion/20nrarkey. htnrl. 

46. Pames, Ainre, “Clinton Allies Distance ‘Decisive’ Hillary from ‘Passive’ Obanra,” The Hill, September 10, 2014, 

47. Meyer, Bill, “Bill Clinton Made Millions from Foreign Sources,”, January 27, 2009, 

48. “Not a Pygmy, but a Giant,” Indiatoday, March 17, 2003, 

49. Zajac, Andrew, “Clinton Donors Wooed, Baggage and All,” The Swamp ( Chicago Tribune), June 30, 2008, 

50. Zajac, Andrew, ‘Talks Not Cheap for Clinton,” Chicago Tribune, April 8, 2008, 
08/news/080407083 1 lsen-hillary-clinton-fee-disaster-relief. 

51. Haniffa, Aziz, “From the Bottom of My Heart, I Salute You,” India Abroad, October 10, 2008. 

52. Malhotra, Jyotl “Whoops of Delight Greet Nuclear Deal” BBC News, November 17, 2006, 

53. “Democrats Will Not Hinder N-deal Passage: Hillary Clinton,” Indo-Asian News Service, September 14, 2008, As the article points out: 
“Democrats’ support is crucial as they control both the House of Representatives and the Senate.” 

54. Prashad, Vijay, “What Did Hillary Clinton Do?” CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names (blog), March 10, 2009, Haniffa, Aziz, ‘“I Have Staked a Lot on the Nuclear Deal,’” 
Rediff, September 23, 2008, 

55. Haniffa, Aziz, “US Senate to Vote on N-deal on Wednesday,” Rediff, October 1, 2008, 

56. Haniffa, Aziz, “‘It’s the Greatest Moment in India-US History,”’ Rediff, October 2, 2008, 


57. “Amar Singh Makes Huge Donation to Clinton Foundation.” 

58. “Clinton ‘Donation’ Complaint,” The Telegraph (Calcutta), December 24, 2008, 

http://www.telegraphindia .com / 1 08 1224/jsp/nation/story_ 1 0294845 .jsp. 

59. Ibid. 

60. “Bill a Friend but No Dollars to Donate,” The Telegraph (Calcutta), December 19, 2008, 

http://www.telegraphindia .com/ 1 08 1220/jsp/nation/story_ 1 027741 9.jsp. 

61. “Indians Gave Millions to Clinton Foundation,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), December 20, 2008. 

62. “Sant Singh Chatwal: Rise and Rise of an American Punjabi Hotelier.” 

63. Jacob, Sarah, “I Am Proud of What I Have Done: Chatwal to NDTV,” NDTV, February 13, 2010, 

64. “I Have No Interest in Indian Politics: Chatwal,” Siasat Daily (Hyderabad, India), March 30, 2011, -no- interest-indian-politics-chatwal?page=0%2Cl. 

65. Jacob, “I Am Proud of What I Have Done.” 

66. “Amar, Jaya Expelled from SP,” Times of India (Mumbai), February 2, 2010, 

67. Nelson, “Hillary Clinton’s Playboy Fundraiser Arrested over Heroin and Cocaine.” 

68. Clifford, Stephanie, and Russ Buettner, “Clinton Backer Pleads Guilty in a Straw Donor Scheme,” New York Times, April 17, 2014, 
http://www.nytimes.eom/2014/04/l 8/nyregion/clinton-backer-pleads-guilty-in-a-straw-donor-scheme.html?_r=0. 

69. US Department of Justice, “Hotel Magnate Pleads Guilty to Federal Election Campaign Spending Limits Evasion Scheme and 
Witness Tampering,” press release, April 17, 2014, 

70. US Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York, “Hotel Magnate Sant Singh Chatwal Pleads Guilty to Scheme to Evade 

Federal Election Campaign Contribution Limits, and to Witness Tampering,” news release, April 17, 2014, 

71. Colvin, Jill “Hotel Magnate Pleads Guilty to Campaign Finance Fraud,” Yew York Observer, April 17, 2014, 

72. “Building the Chatwal Brand,” Leaders Magazine 33, No. 3 (2010), 


1. “Lease Event: A Decade of Difference (Clinton Foundation Event),” Hollywood Bowl October 15, 2011, 
http ://www.hollywoodbowLcom/tickets/lease-event-decade-of-difference-clinton-foundation-event/201 1-10-15. 

2. Brown, August, “Live: Bill Clinton’s ‘Decade of Difference’ Party at Hollywood Bowl,” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 2011, 

3. US Securities and Exchange Commission, “SEC FHes Settled Enforcement Action against Schering-Plough Corporation for Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act Violations,” news release,, June 9, 2004, 

4. Matthews, Christopher M., “Clinton Defends FCPA, as U.S. Chamber Lobbies for Changes to Law,” Wall Street Journal , March 
23, 2012. 

5. McLean, Bethany, “The Power of PhHanthropy,” Fortune, September 7, 2006, 

6. Rauch, Jonathan, “This Is Not Charity,” The Atlantic, October 1, 2007, 

7. Takiff, Michael, A Complicated Man: The Life of Bill Clinton as Told by Those Who Know Him (New Haven, CT: Yale 
University Press, 2010), 403. 

8. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, “Bill Clinton and How to Use Convening Power,” Harvard Business Review, September 19, 2011, 

9. Foer, Fran klin , “Ira Magaziner,” Slate, January 11, 1998. 

10. Magaziner, Ira, Tushar Khadloya, and Samuel Magaram, “The Clinton Foundation: Global Operations,” Brown Journal of World 
Affairs 15, no. 2 (January 31, 2009): 11-21, http://brown.edU/initiatives/journal-world-affairs/14.2/clinton-foundation-global-operations. 

11. “Leadership Team,” Clinton Foundation, June 2014, 

12. Ibid. 

13. BBB Charity Review, “Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” November 2013. 

14. “Charity Navigator Profile — Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” Charity Navigator, 

http ://www.charityna cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=31 1580204#. VFP40FYkHG4. 

15. US Securities and Exchange Commission, “SEC Charges InfoGROUP’s Former CEO, CFOs, and Audit Committee Chair with 
Fraud,” news release, March 15, 2010, Hubbard, Russell, “Deal Doesn’t 
End Legal Wrangling for Infogroup, Gupta,”, February 19, 2014, 

16. US Securities and Exchange Commission, “SEC Charges InfoGROUP’s Former CEO.” Hubbard, “Deal Doesn’t End Legal 
Wrangling for Infogroup, Gupta.” 

17. US Attorney’s Office, “Hotel Magnate Sant Singh Chatwal Pleads Guilty to Scheme to Evade Federal Election Campaign 

Contribution Limits, and to Witness Tampering,” news release, April 17, 2014, 

18. Cassin, Richard L., “Dahdaleh Prosecution Collapses, Key Witnesses from Akin Gump Refuse to Testify,” FCPA Blog, December 
10, 2013, http://www.fcpablog.eom/blog/tag/victor-dahdaleh#. 

19. Armstrong, David, and Alan Katz, “Billionaire Found in Middle of Bribery Case Avoids U.S. Probe,”, August 14, 
2014, http7/ com/news/2014-08- 14/bihionaire-found-in-middle-of-bribery-case-avoids-u-s-probe.htmI 

20. Harper, Tom, “Victor Dahdaleh Corruption Case: Billionaire’s Fraud Trial Collapses after Key SFO Witnesses Refuse to Give 
Evidence,” The Independent (UK), December 10, 2013, 

21. Armstrong and Katz, “Billionaire Found in Middle of Bribery Case Avoids U.S. Probe.” 

22. “Officials, Senior Power Company Executives Face Fraud Charges,”, February 13, 2013, 

23. Lowe, Alison, “Company Seeking BEC Contract Dismisses Fraud Case against CEO,” Nassau (Bahamas) Guardian, February 25, 

24. Moriarty, James F. (US ambassador to Bangladesh), “WikiLeaks — Ambassador Urges Prime Minister’s Adviser to Accelerate 
Energy Sector Development,” July 29, 2009, HAKA741.html 

25. “Lease Event: A Decade of Difference (Clinton Foundation Event).” 

26. McLean, “The Power of Philanthropy.” 

27. Meeting with Indian Generic Drug Industry, Proceedings of World Community Advisory Board, India, Mumbai, January 2005, 
http://www.itpc global org/atomic-documents/ 1 1 057/ 1 1 059/WorldCAB2.pdf. 

28. Quoted in Takiff, A Complicated Man , 408. 

29. Kapstein, Ethan B., and Josh Busby, “Making Markets for Merit Goods: The Political Economy of Antiretrovirals,” Center for Global 
Development, Working Paper 179 (August 2009), 24. 

30. Khadloya, Tushar, and Samuel Magaram, “The Clinton Foundation: Global Operations: An Interview with Tushar Khadloya and 
Samuel Magaram,” Brown Journal of World Affairs, January 31 and February 7, 2009. 


32. Takiff, A Complicated Man, 407. 

33. Dugger, Celia W., “Clinton Makes Up for Lost Time in Battling AIDS,” New York Tunes, August 29, 2006, 

34. Jack, Andrew, “Charm Offensive Five Years after Leaving Office . . . ,” Financial Times, August 19, 2006. 

35. US Department of State, Embassy in Maseru (Lesotho), “Former President Clinton Visits Lesotho to Promote Pediatric Treatment 
Of HIV/AIDS And Launch New Clinic,” WikiLeaks, July 25, 2005, 

36. McLean, “The Power of Philanthropy.” 

37. “Clinton Global Citizen Awards, 2009 Annual Meeting,” Clinton Foundation, 
initiative/meetings/annual-meetings/2009/clinton-global-citizen-awards. Goldstein, Dana, “Bill Clinton’s Rwanda Guilt,” Daily Beast, 

September 23, 2012, French, Howard W., 
“Kagame’s Hidden War in the Congo,” New York Review of Books , September 24, 2009, 

38. See for example, Kagame, Paul, “President Kagame’s Remarks at the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) Joint Partnership on 
Nutrition,”, August 5, 2013, 

39. Kenrpner, Jonathan L., “Welcome,” Mortgage Banking, September 2006. 

40. Dowd, Maureen, “The Vodka Chronicles,” New York Times , April 6, 2008, 

41. Baker, Peter. “His Changing World,” review of Giving by Bill Clinton, Washington Post, September 9, 2007. 


1. Heldernran, Rosalind S., “For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a Beneficial Relationship,” Washington Post, April 13, 2014, 
f2c 3 6d2b 1 245_story. html. 

2. Dwoskin, Elizabeth, “Hillary Clinton’s Business Legacy at the State Department,” Bloomberg Businessweek , January 10, 2013, 

3. US Department of State, USAID, “Partnering with Power Africa,” 

4. Helnran, Christopher, “Obama’s ‘Power Africa’ Plan Greases Billions in Deals for General Electric,” Forbes, July 1, 2013, 

5. Kolbert, Elizabeth, “Election Staffs Resemble Candidates,” New York Tunes , January 4, 1992, html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. Long, Ray, and James 
Kimberly, “Governor Asked Lobby Firm to Help Pick Board,” Chicago Tribune, July 15, 2004, “Hecate Energy 
Leadership Team,” HecateEnergy, 

6. Ahen, Jonathan, and Amie Parnes, I IRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 
Random House, 2014), 128. 

7. Ibid., 9. 

8. Ibid., 128. 

9 . Diplomacy in a Time of Scarcity (Washington, DC: American Academy of Diplomacy, 2012), 

10. Confessore, Nicholas, and Amy Chozick, “Unease at Clinton Foundation over Finances and Ambitions,” New York Tunes , August 

13, 2013, 3/08/ 14/us/politic s/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions. html? 


11. Hernandez, Raymond, “Weiner’s Wife Didn’t Disclose Consulting Work She Did While Serving in State Dept.,” New York Times , 
May 16, 2013, 
while-a-state-dept-aide . html. 

12. US Department of Commerce, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Administration, “Ethics Rules- Balancing Responsibilities 

to the Government and Personal Interests,” February 1, 2013, 4, 

13. Ibid., 6. 

14. “Top Govt. Aides Shouldn’t Also Serve as Outside Consultants,” editorial, Boston Globe, July 29, 2013, 

15. Ahen and Parnes, HRC. 

16. McKelvey, Tara, “Hillary’s Power Grab,” Daily Beast, January 14, 2011, 1 1/0 1 / 1 4/hillary- 
clintons-power-grab-for-usaid.html.Rieff, David, “If Disaster Aid Is Key to the War on Terrorism, Then Why Won’t Obama Appoint 
Someone to Coordinate Disaster Aid?” New Republic, September 17, 2010, 

17. Kinres, Mina, and Michael Smith, “Laureate, a For-profit Education Firm, Finds International Success (with a Clinton’s Help),” 
Washington Post, January 18, 2014, 
success-with-a-clintons-help/2014/01/16/13f8adde-7ca6-l le3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html. 

18. “Laureate Vai Abrir urn Novo Campus No Sul,” ProfessorNews (Brazil), October 20, 2011, 

19. Kinres and Smith, “Laureate, a For-profit Education Firm, Finds International Success.” 

20. Laureate International Universities, “President Bill Clinton Inspires Leadership Commitment among Students during Visits to 

Laureate International Universities Member Institutions in Mexico and Honduras,” news release, May 5, 2012, 

21. Kirnes and Smith, ‘‘Laureate, a For-profit Education Firm, Finds International Success.” 

22. Bill Clinton stated, ‘‘Last year I had the opportunity to visit Laureate’s universities in Spain, Brazil, and Peru to speak to students, 
faculty, and the communities that they serve.” Dorgan, Julie, “Laureate Education Inc.”, April 3, 2012, 

23. National Hispanic University, “Henry Cisneros, Former Secretary of HUD, Delivers NHU Commencement Address,” news release, 
PR Newswire, May 15, 2013, 
commencement-address-20759409 l.html Rodriguez, Joe, “San Jose’s National Hispanic University Will Close by 2015,” San Jose 
Mercury News, March 19, 2014, 

24. Melo, Fabiola, “Comision de diputados detecta siete universidades con irregularidades,” La Tercera (Santiago, Chile), June 19, 2012, 
irregularidades. shtml. 

25. “El reporte de Laureate que explica como extrae ganancias de sus universidades en Chile,” el monstrador.pais, April 10, 2014, 
And http://webcache. 


26. “Youth Leaders in Turkey to Benefit from Expansion of IYF’s YouthActionNet® Program,” news release, International Youth 
Foundation, 101 13 13 1729/http://www. (accessed 2014). 

27. Laureate International Universities, “Laureate Education and International Youth Foundation Announce YouthActionNet® Program 

Commitment at the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting,” news release, September 21, 2010, 

28. Otero, Maria, “Remarks to the International Youth Foundation’s 20th Anniversary Reception,” speech, International Youth 
Foundation’s 20th Anniversary Reception, Washington, DC, October 7, 2010, http://www.state.gOv/j/149203.htm. 

29. “USAID Awards International Youth Foundation with ‘Alliance of the Year’ for 2006,” news release, USAID, The Free Library, 
February 21, 2007, l Awards ! International-1 Youth I Foundation t WitlU%27Alliance+of l the . . . 

30. “International Youth Foundation 990 Tax Forms,” Foundation Center, 
990_type=&fn=&st=&zp=&ei=382935397&fy=&action=Find (accessed 2014). 

31. Inter-American Development Bank, “Conference Tackles Youth Unemployment in Latin America,” June 24, 2011,, 9438.html 


1. Mcintire, Mike, “Clintons Made $109 Million in Last 8 Years,” New York Times, April 4, 2008, html?pagewanted=print&_r=0. Sullivan, Sean. “Hillary Clinton on ‘Dead 
Broke’ Comment: ‘I Regret It,”’ Washington Post, July 29, 2014, 


2. “The Keystone XL Pipeline Timeline,” Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2014, http://blogs.wsj.eom/washwire/20l4/04/24/the-keystone- 

xl-pipeline -timeline/. Priaro, Mike, “A ‘Canada-first’ Canadian Energy Strategy,”, October 26, 2012, 

3. US Department of State, “Application of Transcanada Keystone Pipeline,” May 4, 2012, http://'keystonepipeIiiie- 1 89504.pdf. 

4. Louvel, Yann, “Dodgy Deal: Keystone XL Pipeline,”, March 5, 2014, 

5. Volcovici, Valerie, “Opponents Seek to Debunk U.S. Keystone Claims; Joint Green Report,” Financial Post (Canada), August 30, 

6. Baker, Peter, and Helene Cooper, “Clinton Is Said to Accept Secretary of State Position,” New York Tunes , November 21, 2008, 1 l/22/us/politics/22obama.htmL 


“Hillary Clinton 2008 Personal 
http://pfds . opensecrets. org/N 000000 1 9_2008_Nom.pdf. 







“Hillary Clinton 2009 Personal 
http://pfds . opensecrets. org/N 000000 1 9_2009.pdf. 







“Hillary Clinton 2010 Personal 






http://pfds. opensecrets. org/N 000000 1 9_20 1 0.pdf. 

10. Shecter, Barbara, “How TD Bank Is Linking Up with Bill Clinton to Win over the U.S. Market,” Financial Post (Canada), July 23, 


11. “Centre to Honour Frank McKenna; Fomrer U.S. President Bill Clinton Will Be on Hand in Antigonish for Launch,” News and 
Transcript (New Brunswick), April 8, 2011. “Executive Biographies: Frank McKenna,” TD Bank Financial Group, 2014, 

12. Harder, Amy, “U.S. Oil Giants Poised to Gain on Keystone Pipeline,” National Journal, August 4, 2011, 
http://www.nationaljournaLcom/energy/u-s-oil-giants-poised-to-gain-on-keystone -pipeline -20110804. “Board of Directors,” Canadian 
Natural, 2014, 

13. Pasternak, Sean B., “Goolsbee Says U.S. Opponents of TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline Are Naive,”, November 
8, 2011, 1-1 l-28/goolsbee-says-those-in-u-s-opposing-keystone-xl-are-na-ve-.htmL 

14. Eilperin, Juliet, and Steven Mufson, “Keystone Pipeline Lobbyist Works All the Angles with Former Colleagues,” Washington Post, 
September 22, 201 1 , http://www.washingtonpost.corn/national/health-science/transcanada-pipeline-lobbyist-works-all-the-angles-with- 
former-colleagues/201 l/09/16/gJQAYq3BnK_story.html. 

15. Alberts, Sheldon, “State Department Denies Bias on Keystone Pipeline,” Calgary Herald, October 4, 201 1, D1 sec. 

16. De Souza, Mike, “Alberta Hired Ex-Clinton Aide to ‘Blunt’ Keystone Criticism,” Toronto Star, August 14, 2014, A2 sec. 

17. Krolf Andy, “Exclusive: State Dept. Hid Contractor’s Ties to Keystone XL Pipeline Company,” Mother Jones, March 21, 2013, 

18. “Hillary Clinton 2011 Personal Financial Disclosure,”, June 29, 2012, 

http ://pfds. ope nsecrets. org/N 000000 1 9_20 1 1 .pdf. 

19. McCarthy, Shawn, “State Department E-mails Trigger Allegations of Bias in Keystone Review,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 
September 22, 2011, http://www.thegtobeandnrail.corn/globe-investor/state-department-e-mails-trigger-allegations-of-bias-in-keystone- 

20. US House of Representatives, Energy and Commerce Committee, “Keystone XL: #TinreToBuild,” (accessed January 2015). 

21. VanderKlippe, Nathan, “How a Pipeline Was Defeated: Actors, Activists and One Key Conversation,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 
November 11, 2011, 

22. Sheppard, Kate, “Clinton Tips Hand in Favor of TransCanada’s Massive Pipeline?” Mother Jones, October 20, 2010, 

23. VanderKlippe, “How a Pipeline Was Defeated.” 

24. McCarthy, Shawn, “U.S. Values Canada as Energy Supplier,” Globe Advisor, May 11, 2012, 205 1 1/RBSTATEENERGYMCGARTHYATL. US House of 
Representatives, Energy and Commerce Committee, “Keystone XL: #TinreToBuild.” 

25. Dixon, Darius, and Dan Berman, “Bill Clinton on Keystone XL Pipeline: ‘Embrace’ It,” Politico, February 29, 2012, 

26. Goodman, Lee-Anne, “Bill Clinton Goes to Bat for Keystone XL Even as His Wife Decides Its Fate,” Canadian Press, February 

29, 2012, http://www.stalbertgazette.eom/article/GB/20l20229/CP02/302299787/-l/SAG08/bill-clinton-puts-in-good-word-for- 


27. “TD Bank (TD) to Start Selling Shares of Keystone XL Pipeline after Obama Speech Hints the Project May Not Be Approved,” 

The Free Library, June 28, 2013, http://www.thefreelibrarycom/TD l Bank / 

(TDj+To+Start+SeUing+Shares+Of+Keystone+XL+Pipeline+After . . . -a0335294529. 

28. Ibid. 

29. “Clinton: I’ve Traveled Around Canada Avoiding Answering Questions About the Keystone Pipeline,” on lin e video clip, Rising 
ICYMI, Youtube, January 21, 2015, https7/ 

30. Shecter, Barbara, “How TD Bank is lin king up with Bill Clinton to win over the U.S. market,” Financial Post, July 23, 2014, 

31. Jackson, David, “Bill Clinton Made $13. 4M in 2011 Speech Fees,” USA Today, July 5, 2012, 


32. Spirgel, Larry, “Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2009,” report, September 29, 2010, 

33. Ibid. 

34. US Department of State, Embassy in Stockholm, “Swedish-Iranian Economic Relations: Business as Usual, Resistance to Financial 
Sanctions,” WikiLeaks, December 15, 2009, 

35. US Department of State, “2010 Human Rights Report: Belarus,” report, April 8, 2011, 

http://www .state . gov/j/ drl/rls/hrrpt/20 1 0/ eur/ 154414. htm. 

36. Elgin, Ben, “House Bill May Ban U.S. Surveillance Gear Sales,”, December 9, 2011, 

37. “Escalating Sanctions on Iran,” Frontline, PBS, June 3, 2011, 

38. US Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, “New Sanctions on Iran,” news release, November 21, 2011, 

http://www.state.gOv/r/pa/prs/ps/201 1/1 1/1 77609.htm. 

39. “House Bill May Ban U.S. Surveillance Gear Sales,”, December 9, 2011, 

12- 09/house-biU-would-ban-surveiUance-gear-sales-by-american-firms.html. President of the United States, Executive Order no. 
13590,3 C.F.R. (2011). 

40. Puzzanghera, Jim, “U.S. puts sanctions on telecom firms in Syria, Iran, Los Angeles Times, April 25, 2012,; Stecklow, Steve, “Exclusive: Ericsson helps 
Iran telecoms, letter reveals long-term deal,” Reuters , November 20, 2012, 
ericsson-idUSBRE8AJ0IY20121 120. 

41. Chrisafis, Angelique, “Tunisia: Gang Violence Mars Celebration of Popular Uprising,” The Guardian, January 15, 2011, Batty, David, “Egypt Bomb K ills New Year 
Churchgoers,” The Guardian, January 1, 2011, 

42. Finn, Tom, “Yemeni Protesters Shot Dead at Sana’a University,” The Guardian, February 23, 2011, Black, Ian, “Arrests and Deaths as Egypt 
Protest Spreads across Middle East,” The Guardian, February 14, 2011, 

43. “US Sanctions Foreign Firms Trading with Iran,” BBC News, May 24, 2011, 
13528637. US Department of State, “Seven Companies Sanctioned under the Amended Iran Sanctions Act,” May 2011, 

44. “US Hits Iranian Shipping with Sanctions,” Agence France-Presse, June 20, 2011, 

45. Ibid. 

46. US Department of State, Embassy in Abu Dhabi “Codel to Lowey with UAE Foreign Minister on Iran,” WikiLeaks, February 22, 

47. “Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (AGEDI),”, 
dhabi-global-environmental-data-initiative-agedi (accessed January 2015). “Hillary Clinton 2011 Personal Financial Disclosure,”, June 29, 2012, 

48. Smith, Mark, “On UAE National Day, We Honor Dubai’s Eye-Popping Milestones,” Conde Nast Traveler, December 2, 2011, 

49. “Global Eye on Earth Summit Launched in Abu Dhabi” International Diplomat, 

50. ‘UAE Foreign Mi nis ter Meets with US Secretary of State,” UAEinteract, December 15, 2011, Aside: Tracing the 
funding for the speeches can be difficult. Based on the Clinton’s personal financial disclosure forms, apart from this speech, there 
were no speeches sponsored by companies officially owned by the royal family. 

51. Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State, Case No. F-201 1-03401, Doc No. C05459127 (2014), 419. 

52. “E-Commerce Association Welcomed,” People’s Daily (China), June 22, 2000, 

53. Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Stale, 213. 

54. Cendrowski, Scott, “China’s Baddest Billionaire Builder,” Fortune, July 7, 2014, 

55. Zhang Yiwen, “Yan Jiehe Talks about Enterprise Development,” China Daily, September 6, 2012, 

56. “Clinton Corruption Bombshells,” Judicial Watch, August 1,2014, 

57. Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State. 

58. Powell, Catherine, “Dean Harold Koh: A Great Nomination for State Department Legal Advisor,” Huffington Post, April 10, 2009, 


1. Democratic Republic of the Congo, “Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006,” Pub.L. 109-456 (2006), 

2. “Clinton Global Initiative Announces BD’s Commitment to Biamba Marie Mutombo Hospital,” PR Newswire, October 29, 2014. 

3. “Clinton: US Committed to Good Governance in Congo,” Voice of America, August 11, 2009, 

1 3- 2009-08- 1 0-voa3 8-688208 1 7/364539. htnil. “Hillary Clinton Will Take UN Plane to Epicenter of African Conflict,” CNN Wire, 
August 10, 2009, 

4. Dizolele, Mvemba Phezo, “Hope But No Change,” Foreign Policy, July 16, 2012, 

5. Dizoelel, Mvemba Phezo, “Hope but No Change,”, July 16, 2012, 

http://www . fore ignpolicy. c om / artic le s/20 1 2/07/ 1 6/hope_but_no_change . 

6. “Hillaiy: I’m in, and I’m in to Win,” online video clip,, Youtube, January 20, 2007, https f/www. youtube, com/watch? 

7. “Lundin Group Commits 100 millio n to Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative,” press release, Clinton Foundation, July 6, 2007, 

8. Clarke, Duncan, Africa: Crude Continent — The Struggle for Africa ’s Oil Prize (London: Profile Books, 2010). 

9. Goldstein, Ritt, “Sudanese Blood Spills into Asia,”, June 25, 2010, 

http://www . atime s . c om/ atime s/ Global_Ec onomy/LF25DjO 1 . html. 

10. “Business Family Pledges 100 M illio n Dollars to Clinton Charity,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, July 10, 2007. 

1 1 . “Rising Star: Africa Oil Corp,” Energy Intelligence Finance, February 27, 2013. 

12. Jorde, Sigurd, “The Pension Funds Profit from Gold Rush in Eritrea,” Framtiden (Norway), October 16, 2012, 

13. “Canada: Kinross Gold to Acquire 100% of Red Back Mining for US $7.1 Billion,” Tendersinfo, August 5, 2010. 

14. Grant, Dale, “Canadians Cry ‘Havoc,’ and Let Slip the Dogs of War,” Toronto Star, March 9, 1999, 
05-ll/news/25564930_l_shaba-lubumbashi-president-mobutu-sese-seko. “Mining Concern Agrees to Pay Rebels for Right to Mine in 
Zaire,” Business Day (Johannesburg, South Africa), May 13, 1997. McGeough, Paul “Jets Follow Promise of Glittering Mineral 
Wealth in the East,” Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), May 13, 1997. 

15. Quoted in Maykuth, Andrew, “Outside Mining Firms Find Zaire an Untapped Vein; Deals Are Being Made with the Rebels, Who 
Need the Cash; the Rival Companies Are Themselves Also Coming into Conflict,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 11, 1997. 

16. Abadie, Delphine, Alain Deneault, and Willia m Sacher, “This Is Not an Ethnic Conflict — Vested Interests and Complex Networks 
behind the DRC Fighting,” Le Monde Diplomatique , December 1, 2008. 

17. Abadie, Delphine, “Canada and the Geopolitics of Mining Interests: A Case Study of the Democratic Republic of Congo,” Review of 
African Political Economy > 38, no. 128 (June 2011), and Donville, Christopher, “Friedland Seeks Congo Funding After Gobi Exit: 
Corporate Canada,” September 13, 2012, 

18. Rosen, Armin, “The Warlord and the Basketball Star: A Story of Congo’s Corrupt Gold Trade,” The Atlantic, March 1, 2012. 

19. UN Security Council Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, “Statement by Chairman of Security Council Working Group 
on Children and Armed Conflict,” March 18, 2011, 

20. Gordon, Greg, and Will Connors, “Clinton Fundraiser Faces Legal Problems in Nigeria,”, April 6, 2008, 

21. CAMAC Group, “Pacific Asia Petroleum & CAMAC Complete Oilfield Transaction,” news release, April 7, 2010, 

22. Rosen, “The Warlord and the Basketball Star.” 

23. Cause, DC-11-04005, 134th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas. Jones, Pete, “Obama-appointed U.S. Trade Advisor Linked to 
Illegal Deal in Congolese Gold,” The Guardian, February 5, 2011, http://www.thegqardian.corn/world/2012/feb/05/us-adviser-hnked- 

24. For a full detailed account of this story, see the UN report at 155632.pdf. 

25. Cause, DC-1 1-04005, 134th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas. 

26. “Mohammed A I Amoudi: Ethiopia’s Richest Man Spots Opportunities at Home,” Ventures Africa, April/May 2013. 

27. Allen, Terry J., “Global Land Grab,” In These Times, August 22, 2011, http://inthesetimes.eom/artiele/l 1 784/global_land_grab. 

28. Davison, William, “Ethiopia: Saudi Billionaire Signs $600 Million Ethiopian Steel-Plant Deal,”, October 5, 2012, “The 

Ethiopian Billionaire: Sheikh Mohammed A I Amoudi,” Ventures, July 20, 2012, 

29. “Ethiopia — A1 Amoudi Donates $20 m illio n to Clinton Foundation,”, May 14, 2007, 

30. “Midroc’s Friends in Washington,” Indian Ocean Newsletter no. 889, January 29, 2000. Ah three senators were connected to the 
lobbying firm Verner Lipfert Bernard McPherson and Hand, which was a paid adviser to Midroc. 

31. Letter written by Ethiopian Americans for Justice, February 10, 2009. Kifle, Ehas, “Ethiopian Groups Concerned about A I Amoudi 
Donation,” Ethiopian Review, February 10, 2009, 

32. Letter written by Ethiopian Americans for Justice, February 10, 2009. Kifle, “Ethiopian Groups Concerned About A1 Amoudi 

33. Bekele, Getahune, “A1 Amoudi: The Black Billionaire Survives Health Scare,” Ethiopian News & Opinions, August 29, 2012, Wax, E mily , “Ethiopian Leader Meles Zenawi Dies at 57,” 
Washington Post, August 21, 2012, 

abroad/20 12/08/2 1/T63 7bf62-e 7b2- 1 1 e 1 -936a-b80 1 f 1 abab 1 9_story. html 

34. “A1 Amoudi Says ‘I Lost My Right Hand’ over Death of PM Meles Zenawi,” Ethiomedia, August 30, 2012, 

35. Davison, William, “Ethiopia’s Foreign Land Leases Fail to Deliver Food for Export,” Business Report , November 26, 2013, 

36. “The Ethiopian Billionaire: Sheikh Mohammed A1 Amoudi.” Davison, William, “Ethiopia: Saudi Billionaire Signs $600 Million 
Ethiopian Steel-Plant Deal,”, October 5, 2012, http://nazret.eom/blog/index.php/20l2/l0/05/ethiopia-billionaire- 

37. “How Politicians Gave Away $100 Bn of Land,” Novafrica Developments, The African Report no. 42 (July 15, 2012). 

38. Loewenberg, Samuel, “Aid Agencies Accused of Ignoring Rights Abuses in Ethiopia,” The Lancet 382, issue 9896 (September 

39. Rosen, Armin, “The Zenawi Paradox: An Ethiopian Leader’s Good and Terrible Legacy,” The Atlantic , July 20, 2012, 

40. “Obituary: Meles Zenawi,” The Telegraph (UK), August 22, 2012, 
obituar ie s/949 1 93 4/Me le s -Ze na w i. htrnl. 

41. Hillenbrand, Barry, “An Abrupt End of an Era,” The Herald, September 1, 2012, 
ethiopia- 1 1/. 

42. “Ethiopia — PM Meles Participation in Pittsburgh Summit Confirmed,” WikiLeaks, 

43. US State Department, Embassy in Addis Ababa, “Under Secretary Otero’s Meeting with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi — 
January 31, 2010,” report, WikiLeaks, February 2, 2010, 

44. Lyman, Princeton N., and Stephen B. Witte Is, “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: The Unintended Consequences of Washington’s 
HIV/AIDS Programs,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2010, 

45. US State Department, Embassy in Addis Ababa, “PM Welcomes New Charge with Substance,” WikiLeaks, January 21, 2010, 

46. US Office of the Federal Register, “FY 2012 Fiscal Transparency Report,” 
https 7/www.federalregister. gov/articles/2013/03/04/2013-04914/2012-fiscal- transparency-report. 

47. US State Department, “Ethiopia: Report on Fiscal Transparency,” WikiLeaks, April 21, 2009, 

48. US Office of the Federal Register, voL 76, issue 191, 61134. 

49. Dashen Bank, 17th Annual Report for the Year Ending June 30, 2013, November 14, 2013. See the Notes to the Financial 
Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2013 available at 

50. “Success Story: U.S. Firms Partner with Ethiopia’s Almeda Tetils in Long-Term Apparel Deal,” USAID: East Africa. 

51. “Prospective Presidents and Their Networks,” Indian Ocean Newsletter,, no. 1226, November 17, 2007, ,34997823-EVE. 

52. “Obama’s Team Not Yet Finalized,” Indian Ocean Newsletter, no. 1258 (March 21, 2009),, 57923 115- ART. 

53. Wilson, Joseph C., “The Real Hillary I Know — and the Unreal Obama,” Huffington Post, May 25, 2011, US Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, 
“Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq,” July 7, 2004, 

54. “Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson,” Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles, April 23, 2007, http://www.psr- “Valerie Plame Wilson: The Housewife CIA Spy Who Was ‘Fair Game’ for Bush,” 
The Telegraph (UK), February 15, 2011, 

55. Moffat-Chaney, Casey, “Ambassador Joe Wilson Stumps for Hillary in Portland,”, April 29, 2008, Emig, Aeriel, “The Plame Affair,” 17, no. 30, July 2008, Kornblut, Anne E., “Stern Constitutions Needed for Globe-trotting with Bill 
Clinton,” Washington Post, August 6, 2008, 

dyn/c ontent/artic le/2008/08/05/AR2008080503 544. html. 

56. “Obama’s Team Not Yet Finalized.” 

57. “Joseph C. Wilson,” profile, Huffington Post, 

58. “Jarch Capital, Strategy,” http://www.jarchcapitaLcom/strategy.php. 

59. “Former Wall Street Banker Philippe Heilberg Gambles on a Warlord’s Continuing Control of 400,000 Hectares of Land in South 

Sudan,” Sudan Watch, January 10, 2009, 

“Ambassador Joe Wilson Begins Working with Jarch Capital,” Sudan Tribune, January 19, 2007, 

http://www . sudantrihune . c om / spip. php? article 1 983 3 . 

60. Silverstein, Ken, “Jarch Capital’s Sudanese Gambit,” Harper’s, November 20, 2007, 


61. “Southern Sudan: Oil Investor Banking on Succession?” Ratio Magazine, June 3, 2009, httpy/www. ratio- 

magazine. com/20090603665/Southern-Sudan/Southern-Sudan-Oil-Investor-Banking-on-Secession.html. 

62. Bias, Javier, and William Wallis, “Buyer Sees Profit in Warlord’s Land,” Financial Times, January 10, 2009, 


63. “Southern Sudan: Oil Investor Banking on Succession?” 

64. “New SPLA General, Tanginya, Becomes Advisor to US Company Jarch,” Sudan Tribune, October 23, 2010, 

65. Ibid. 

66. Ibid. 

67. “South Sudan YP Confirms Apology for Bor Massacre,” Sudan Tribune, April 3, 2012, 

68. “Profile: South Sudan Army Defector Peter Gadet,”, July 1 1, 2014, 

69. See Hillary Clinton’s Personal Financial Disclosures, 201 1-2012, available at 

70. Ragaza, Angela, “Using Star Power to Repair Nigeria’s Image,” New York Tunes , July 10, 2008, 

71. Abedowale, Segun, “THISDAY Awards Cheques to Nigerian Teachers Bounce,” Eagle Online, April 4, 2013, 

72. US State Department, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012,” 
http://www.state.gOv/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/20l 2humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2012&dUH204 1 53#wrapper. 

73. Gambrill, Jon, “Newspaper Strike Hits Flamboyant Nigerian Publisher,” AP The Big Story, May 10, 2013, Ward, Alex, “Nigerian President ‘Spent $1 M illi on of 
Aid Money Meant for Poverty-stricken Country on Star-studded Festival Featuring Beyonce and Jay-Z,”’ Daily Mail (UK), 
February 23, 2013, 

74. Olson, Elizabeth, “Swiss Freeze a Dictator’s Giant Cache,” New York Times , January 29, 2000, 


75. Okonta, Ike, and Oronto Douglas, Where Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Rights, and Oil (New York: Verso, 2003), 38. Rupert, 
James, “Corruption Flourished in Abacha’s Regime,” Washington Post, June 9, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.corn/wp- 
srv/inatl/longterm/nigeria/stories/corrupt060998.htm. Adegbamigbe, Ademola, “Nigeria: The Crude Pirate,” The News (Lagos), July 
28, 2000, httpy/allafrica. com/stories/200007280213. html Salami, Semiu, “Nigeria’s Oil Mafia,” The News (Lagos), January 4, 1999, 
http:// a 11a frica. c om / stories/ 199901 040007. html. 

76. Silverstein, Ken, “Clinton Foundation Donors and Hillary’s Confirmation,” Harper ’s, January 21, 2009, 

77. US Justice Department, “U.S. Forfeits Over $480 Million Stolen by Former Nigerian Dictator in Largest Forfeiture Ever Obtained 
Through a Kleptocracy Action,” August 7, 2014, 

78. Urevich, Robin, “Chasing the Ghosts of a Corrupt Regime,” Frontline, PBS, January 8, 2010, 

79. Rupert, “Corruption Flourished in Abacha’s Regime.” 

80. Solomon, John, "Billionaire Clinton Pal Finally Gets Waiver from U.S. No-fly List,” Center for Public Integrity, May 21, 2010, 

81. Apple, R. W., “Clinton in Africa: The Policy; U.S. Stance Toward Nigeria and Its Ruler Seems to Shift,” New York Tunes , March 
28, 1998, 

82. “Nigeria: Chronology of the Struggle for Stability and Democracy,” AllAfrica, August 24, 2000, 

83. Urevich, “Chasing the Ghosts of a Corrupt Regime.” 

84. Silverstein, “Clinton Foundation Donors and Hillary’s Confirmation.” 

85. “Eko Atlantic City,”, http://edition.cnn.eom/WORLD/africa/africanawards/pdL20l3/tolu-ogunlesi/tolu- 

86. Esposito, Richard, Rhonda Schwartz, and Brian Ross, “No-Fly Terror List Includes Big Financial Backer of Clinton,” ABC News, 
February 17, 2010, 

87. St. Lucia Prime Minster’s Office, “Prime Minister’s Address in Honour of the Honourable Willia m Jefferson Clinton,” January 18, 

88. Emshwiller, John R., “Bill Clinton’s Complicated World,” Wall Street Journal, December 20, 2008, 122973023 139522863. 

89. Urevich, “Chasing the Ghosts of a Corrupt Regime.” 

90. “Nigeria: N27 Billion Halliburton Scam IBB, Abdulsalami, Diya, 77 Others Indicted,” AllAfrica, April 14, 2010, Silverstein, Ken, “Clinton Donor Figures in New Halliburton Bribe Document,” 
Harper’s , April 13, 2010, 0/04/c linton-donor-figures-in-new-halliburton-bribe-document/. “Halliburton 
Settles Nigeria Bribery Claims for $35 Million,” CNN, December 21, 2010, 

91. “Ambassador Gilbert Chagoury 2005 Pride of Heritage Honoree,” Lebanese American Foundation, Inc., 

92. Lagos (Nigeria) State Government, “Eko Atlantic City Gets Global Recognition, Wins CGI Award,” September 25, 2009, 
http://www. lagosstate. gov. ng/news2.php?k= 1 58. 

93. Ammann, Daniel, The King of Oil: The Secret Lives of Marc Rich (New York, St. Martin’s, 2009), 100. 


1. “President Bill Clinton and Philanthropists Frank Giustra and Carlos Slim Launch Fondo Acceso SAS, a USD $20 Million Fund for 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in Colombia,” press release, Clinton Foundation, June 9, 2010, 

2. Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Hard Choices (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014), 253. 

3. Uribe Velez, Alvaro, No Lost Causes (New York: Celebra, 2012), 179. 

4. “Hillary Clinton Voices Ongoing US Support for Colombia,” BBC News, June 10, 2010, 

5. “U.S. Senators Seek Changes to Plan Colombia: US-Colombia,” Latin American Herald Tribune (Caracas), EFE News Service 
(Madrid), January 27, 2010, asp?ArticleId=351 189&CategoryId=12393. 

6. Romero, Simon, “Colombia Extradites 14 Paramilitary Leaders,” New York Tunes , May 14, 2008, 

7. Brody, Daniel, ‘Uribe meets with Bill Clinton,” Colombiareports, June 10, 2010. Begg, Kristen, “Clinton to Meet Uribe, Santos, and 
Mockus,” Colombiareports, June 8, 2010, 

8. “Clintons Stand Up for Colombia,” Investor ’s Business Daily, June 14, 2010, http://news. investors. com/ibd-editorials/06 1110- 

9. “Prirna Colombia Hardwood Inc. Completes Acquisition of REM Forest Products Inc, and Closing of $5,500,000, Financing” 
Canada Newswire, Digital Journal, September 22, 2010, 

10. “Prirn a Colombia Hardwood Inc. Completes Acquisition of Rem Forest Products Inc. and Closing of $5,500,000 Financing,” 
Newswire, September 22, 2010, 

11. Jimenez, Carlos, “Frank Giustra,”, January 20, 2012, 

12. Pacific Rubiales Energy, “Pacific Rubiales Energy Awarded Six Blocks in the ‘2010 ANH Round’ Bidding Process,” press release, 
June 23, 2010, 

13. Quoted in Forero, Juan, “Venezuelan Oilmen Pushed Out by Hugo Chavez Find Opportunities in Colombia,” Washington Post, 

September 12, 2011, 

colonrbia/20 1 1 /09/ 1 2/gIQ AiO cjTK_story. html. 

14. Pacific Rubiales Energy, “Where Talent and Knowledge Meet Opportunity,” investor presentation, December 2010, 

15. Humphreys, Tommy, “Los Minerales Hermanos: How Two Friends Made a Fortune in Colombia and Expect to Do It Again,”, April 2, 2013, 

16. Clinton Foundation, “Press Release: Projects of the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative,” March 1, 2008, 

17. Pacific Rubiales Energy, “Petro Rubiales Energy and Underwriters Contributing $4.4 Million to Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth 
Initiative,” press release, July 24, 2007, http://www.pacificrubiales.coni/2007/35-24072007. 

18. “El primer dia de la Accion Humanitaria y Laboral a Puerto Gaitan es una aclaracion, de que la USO no ha firmado ningun acuerdo 

con,” USOPAZ, October 11, 2011, 


19. Petroamerica Oil Corp., “Petroamerica Receives Key Colombian Approval,” press release, June 21, 2010, 

20. Humphreys, Tommy, and Tekoa da Silva, “Energy Heavyweights Engineering a Turnaround?” CEO.CA, Augusst 20, 2012, 

21. Estimates from Petroamerica executive Robert Gillcrest were that the land it could now drill on boasted between “[t]wo to twenty 
million barrels maximum” of oil. 

22. US Department of State, Embassy in Bogota, “Colombia: Energy Sector to Expand with E xin i Financing,” WikiLeaks, November 18, 

23. The secretary of state has the power to review, approve, deny, or delay Exlm financing to any country, entity, or person, 

24. “EXMAR, IFC Sign Floating Liquefaction Unit Financing Deal,” LNG World News, December 6, 2012, 

25. Endeavour Mining, “Endeavour’s Growth Plan,” October 2010, httpy/ 

26. “Merchant Banking, Endeavour Financial Corporation,” BMO Global Resource Conference, February 2009, 

27. Baja Mining, quarterly report, first quarter 201 1, l_MDA.pdf. 

28. US Export-Import Bank, “Semi-Annual Report to Congress, April 1-September 30, 2013,” 30, 31, 

29. Humphreys, “Los Minerales Hermanos.” 

30. Isaacson, Adam, “Colombia: Don’t Call It a Model,” Washington Office of Latin America, July 13, 2010, 
http://www . wola . org/public ations/ c olombia_dont_c a ll_it_a_mode 1. 

31. Good, Chris, “Republicans Support Obama’s Trade Agenda. Do Democrats?” The Atlantic, September 17, 2011, “Carnation 
Revolution: A Long-awaited Pact Comes into Force,” The Economist, May 19, 2012, http://www.economist.eom/node/2 1 555592. 

32. According to Maria Consuelo Araujo, “President Alvaro Uribe said the country can not continue living preferences. On TLC there is 
concern because some American analysts believe that the current Congress would not give its approval to the agreement.” Araujo, 
‘Uribe, tras prorroga de ayuda comercial,” El Pais (Bogota), September 1, 2014, 
hl=en&sl=es&u=httpy/ 0 / 

33. Smith, Elliot Blair, “Clinton Used Giustra’s Plane, Opened Doors for Deals,”, February 22, 2008, 

34. Stein, Sam, “Bill Clinton’s Ties to Colombia Trade Deal Stronger than Even Penn’s,” Huffington Post, May 25, 2011, 
http://www.huffmgtonpost. com/2008/04/08/bill-clintons-ties-to-col_n_9565 1 .html. 

35. Emshwiller, John, and Jose De Cordoba, “Bill Clinton’s Complex Charities,” Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2008, 

36. Ibid. 

37. “Plan Colombia — the Sequel,” The Economist August 21, 2003, Carter, Zach, “Trade 
Deals Face Growing House Opposition amid Continued Violence in Colombia,” video , Huffington Post, August 11, 2011, 

38. Fenwarth, Andres Espinosa, “Opinion — Colombia atenta a posicion de Hillary Clinton sobre TLC,” Noticias Financieras, 
November 14, 2007. 

39. “Colombia to Honor Clinton for His Efforts to Help Country’s Image,” Arkansas Online, May 24, 2007, 

40. Isikoff, Michael, and Mark Hosenbalf “It’s So Nice to Be Here,” Newsweek, April 21, 2008, 

41. Ibid. 

42. Davis, Susan, “Clinton Aide Met on Trade Deal; Penn Held Talks on Colombia Pact Opposed by Senator,” Wall Street Journal , 
April 4, 2008. Kirchgaessner, Stephanie, “Colombia Sacks PR Firm Led by Clinton Strategist,” Financial Times, April 7, 2008, 

43. Kirchgaessner, “Colombia Sacks PR Firm Led by Clinton Strategist.” 

44. Javers, Eamon, “HRC Colombia ties don’t stop with Perm,” April 7, 2008, 

45. “Clinton Reiterates Opposition to Colombia Trade Pact,” Los Angeles Ernes, April 9, 2008, 


46. “Uribe Criticizes Obama over Free Trade Pact,” Colombia Reports, April 3, 2008, 

47. “Colombia Business Forecast Report,” Business Monitor International, 2nd Quarter 2008 Report. 

48. ‘U.S. Secretary of State Willing to Work with Colombia on Trade Deal — Official,” BBC Monitoring Americas, February 26, 2009. 

49. Muscara, Aprille, “U.S.: Spate of Trade Deals Move toward Passage,” Global Information Network, January 28, 2011, 

50. “Secretary Clinton’s Remarks to the Press at the Release of the 2010 Human Rights Reports,”, April 8, 2011. 

51. US Department of State, “2010 Colombia Human Rights Report,” 

52. Dougherty, Jilf “Hillary Clinton Tells U.S. Businesses ‘We Need to Up Our Game,’ Abroad,”, July 12, 2011, 

53. AFL-CIO, “Colombia,” 

54. Jimenez, Carlos, “Frank Giustra, ”, January 20, 2012, 

55. Press Office of Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo (Colombia), “Rather than Just Leaving Zamora ANH,” September 13, 2011, -justa-la-salida-de-Zamora.html. 

56. “Letter from Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo, Bogota, August 23, 2011, to Ronald Pantin, President of Pacific Rubiales Energy, 

57. “Canadian Billionaire Frank Giustra May Not Harvest Timber in Choco,” August 24, 2012, 


1. Haberman, Maggie, “50 Politicos to Watch: Cheryl Mills,” Politico, July 19, 2013, 
politicos-to-watch-cheryl-mills-94 1 82.html. 

2. US Government Accountability Office, “Haiti Reconstruction U.S. Efforts Have Begun, Expanded Oversight Still to Be 
Implemented,” report, May 2011, http://www.gao.gOv/assets/320/3 18629.pdf. 

3. “Bill Clinton’s New Plan to Fix Haiti” Esquire, August 7, 2010, 

4. US Department of State, “Fast Fact on U.S. Government’s Work in Haiti: Interim Haiti Recovery Commission,” fact sheet, January 
8, 2011, http://www.state.gOv/p/wha/rls/fs/201 1/154141. htm; 

5. US Government Accountability Office, “Haiti Reconstruction U.S. Efforts Have Begun.” 

6. US Government Accountability Office, “Haiti Reconstruction: USAID Infrastructure Projects Have Had Mixed Results,” June 

7. World Bank, “Indonesia: A Reconstruction Chapter Ends Eight Years after the Tsunami,” December 26, 2012, 

8. US Government Accountability Office, “Haiti Reconstruction: U.S. Efforts Have Begun.” 

9. Sontag, Deborah, “Rebuilding in Haiti Lags after Billions in Post-Quake Aid,” New York Tunes , December 23, 2012, 

10. Herz, Ansel, and Kim Ives, “WikiLeaks Haiti: The Post-Quake ‘Gold Rush’ for Reconstruction Contracts,” The Nation, June 15, 


11. Clary, Mike, “Broward Rivals Battle for Work in Post-quake Haiti,” Sun Sentinel (Florida), July 14, 2010, http://articles.sun- 

12. Echeverria, Lily, “Contractors Bet on Work in Helping Haiti Recover,” The Ledger (Lakeland, FL), May 26, 2010, 

13. Iuspa-Abbott, Paola, “Developer Takes Fact-finding Mission to Haiti,” Daily Business Review, March 4, 2010, 
http :// 155631. 

14. O’Grady, Mary Anastasia, “Clinton for Haiti Czar?” Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2010, 


15. Herz and Ives, “WikiLeaks Haiti” 

16. Boyer, Peter J., “General Clark’s Battles,” New Yorker, November 17, 2003, 

17. Haberman, Maggie, “Wes Clark Also ‘Ready for Hillary’ Clinton,” Politico, June 23, 2013, 

18. US Department of State, Embassy in Port-au-Prince, “Earthquake Sitrep as of 1800,” Wikileaks, February 1, 2010, 

19. Viglucci, Andres, “Low Cost Cabins Offered for Post-Haiti Earthquake Housing,” Miami Herald, February 25, 2010. Brinkmann, 
Paul, “Claudio Osorio Target in $220M Swiss Probe,” South Florida Business Journal, January 27, 2011, 

20. US Overseas Private Investment Corporation, “Non-confidential Information Summary for the Public,” InnoVida Holdings LLC, 

21. Gray, Kevin, “Claudio Osorio Arrested on Fraud Charges over Innovida Haiti Housing Scam,” video, Huffington Post, December 7, 

2012, httpy/www.huffingtonpost. com/2012/12/07/claudio-osorio-fraud-charges-jeb-bush-innovida_n_22627 1 7.html 

22. Chiareha, Tom, “While Most of the World Has Stopped Paying Attention to Haiti, Bill Clinton Is the De Facto Leader of the Effort 
to Rebuild the Country,” Esquire, July 19, 2010, 

23. Charles, Jacqueline, “Bill Clinton to take on key Haiti reconstruction role,” Miami Herald, March 30, 2010, 

24. Pierre -Pierre, Garry, “Our Man in Haiti: Bill Clinton,” America’s Quarterly, Fall 2009, 
pierre -pierre -haiti. 

25. Hujer, Marc, “A Stubborn Savior: Is Bill Clinton Haiti’s Hope for Salvation?” Spiegel, January 10, 2012, 


26. Archibold. Randal C., “Haiti’s Prime Minister Quits after 4 Months,” New York Times, February 25, 2012, 

27. “Haiti Economy: Bill Clinton’s Role in Economic Policy Increases,” Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Newswire, November 15, 
2011, ticleid=978596082&Country=Haiti&topic=Economy&subtopic=Current+policy&sub 

28. Johnston, Jake, “Outsourcing Haiti,” Boston Review, January 16, 2014, http://www.bos 

29. Ibid. 

30. Valbrun, Marjorie, “Haitian Firms Few and Far between on Reconstruction Rosters,” Center for Public Integrity, January 11, 2012, 
http://www.publicintegrity. org/2012/01/11/7846/haitian-firms-few-and- far-between-reconstruction-rosters. 

31. Uttley, Jimmy, “An Eventful Time for Haiti: Did Anyone Notice?” Haiti Observateur , May 27, 2009. 

32. Marcus, Ruth, “Reelection Team Repeatedly Asked President’s Aid,” Washington Post, September 22, 1997, 

33. Byron, Christopher, “Pols’ Haiti Hook-up,” New York Post, March 2, 2005, http://www. 

34. O’Grady, Mary Anastasia, “Democrats for Despotism,” Wall Street Journal, October 27, 2008, 


35. Ibid. 

36. Heinrich, Erik, “Haiti’s Mobile Redemption,” Fortune, August 15, 2013, http //fortune. com/2013/08/15/haitis-mobile-redemption/. 

37. Ibid. 

38. Jackson, Steven, “Digicel Operating Profit Hits Record US$1B,” The Gleaner (Jamaica), June 6, 2012, http:/7jamaica- ness5.html. 

39. Bramhill, Nick, “Bill Clinton Praises Ireland for Being First to Help with His Global AIDS Initiative,” IrishCentral, October 10, 2013, 
http ://www.irishcentraLcom/news/biU-clinton-praises-ire land- for-being-first-to-help-with-his-global-aids-initiative-227204991- 
237782151. htrnL 

40. “Find a Goal for Jamaica to Embrace, Says Bill Clinton,” Jamaica Observer, October 27, 2010, 

http ://m.jamaicaobserver. com/mobile/bus iness/Find-a-goal-for-Jamaica-to-embrace— says-Bill-Clinton_8091662. 

41. Humphreys, Joe, “Bill Clinton Visit Cements Close Working Relationship with Denis O’Brien,” Irish Times, October 10, 2013, 
httpsk/www. irishtimes. com/search/search-7. 1213540?article=trae&q=&tag_person=Mr%200%20Brien&tag_company=Con 

42. Clinton, Bill, “The Case for Optimism,” Time, October 1, 2012, http://content.time. 

com/time/magazine/article/0,9 1 7 1 ,212503 1 ,00.html. 

43. Browne, Vincent, “O’Brien’s Record Should Disbar Him from Having a Disproportionate Hold on Media,” Dennis O Brien News, 

August 14, 2013, http :/? w w w. de n is obr ie n; Tribunal of Inquiry (Ireland), “Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into 
Payments to Politicians and Related Matters,” part II, vols. 1 and 2, The Guardian March 2011,; http://www. moriarty- tid=310& Mode=0&RecordID=545. 

44. See and Evens Sanon and Danica Coto, “Haiti Awards Gold, Copper Mining Permits,” Associated Press, 
December 21, 2012. 

45. Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, “Haiti’s ‘Gold Rush’ Pro mis es El Dorado — but for Whom?” June 27, 2012, 

46. Regan, Jane, “Haitian Senate Calls for Halt to Mining Activities,” Inter Press Ser vice, February 24, 2013. 

47. Reitman, Janet, “Beyond Rehef: How the World Failed Haiti,” Rolling Stone, August 4, 2011, 

http://www.rolhngstone. com/pohtics/news/how-the-world-failed-haiti-201 1 0804?page=7. 

48. Ibid. 

49. Ibid. 

50. US Agency for International Development, Office of Inspector General, “Audit of USAID’s Efforts to Provide Shelter in Haiti,” 
April 19, 2011, 

51. Macdonald, Isabel, and Isabeau Doucet, “The Shelters that Clinton Built,” The Nation, August 1-8, 2011, 

52. Doucet, Isabeau, and Isabel MacDonald, “Shelters in Leogare Inspected by Clinton Foundation,” The Gazette (Montreal), August 

53. Sontag, Deborah, “Rebuilding in Haiti Lags after Billions in Post-Quake Aid,” New York Tunes , December 23, 2012, 

54. Regan, Jane, “Haiti: Housing Exposition Exposes Waste, Cynicism,” The World-Post , December 3, 2012, “Haiti: Housing Exposition Exposes Waste, 

Cynicism,” Global Information Network, October 2, 2012, 

55. “Haiti’s Two-M illio n-Dollar Ghost Town,” Inter Press Ser vice News Agency, October 2, 2012, 

56. “Haiti: Housing Exposition Exposes Waste, Cynicism,” Global Information Network, October 2, 2012. 

57. Watkins, Tate, “A $300 Million Development Project — and Haiti’s Future — Depend on America’s Open Markets,” Quartz, May 8, 


58. Charles, Jacqueline, “Haitian Garment Industry Uplifted by Korean Investment,”, April 10, 2011, 

59. Sontag, Deborah, “Earthquake Relief Where Haiti Wasn’t Broken,” New York Times , July 5, 2012, 

60. US General Accountability Office, “Report to Congressional Requesters, Haiti Recon-struction: USAID Infrastructure Projects 
Have Mixed Results and Face Sustainability Challenges,” June 2013, 8, 10. 

61 . Sontag, “Earthquake Relief Where Haiti Wasn’t Broken.” 

62. Johnston, Jake, “Outsourcing Haiti,” Boston Review, January 16, 2014, http://www.bos 

63. Watkins, “A $300 Million Development Project.” 

64. Louis, Newton, and Andre Michel, “Haiti — Justice: Me Newton and Me Michel Ini-tiate an Action against Former President 
Clinton,” Haiti Libre, April 17, 2014, 
action-against-former-president-clinton.htmL O’ Grady, Mary A., “Bill, Hillary and the Haiti Debacle,” Wall Street Journal , May 18, 



1. Clinton, Hillary, “International Anti-Corruption Day,” US Department of State, December 9, 2009, htm. 

2. “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Receive Transparency Interna tional-USA’s Integrity Award,” US Department of 
State, Office of the Spokesman, March 21, 2012, http://www.state.gOv/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/03/186148.htm. 

3. OECD Working Group on Bribery, “Annual Report 2013,” December 4, 2013, 
bribe ry/A n ti B ribe ry A n n R e p20 1 2. pdf, 6. 

4. United States v. Abbey 560 F.3d 513, 518-19 (6th Cir. 2009). Henning, Peter J., and Lee Radek, The Prosecution and Defense 
of Public Corruption: The Law and Legal Strategies (New York: Oxford University Press, 201 1), 1 14. 

5. Metcalf, Tom, “Ireland’s Would-Be Carlos Slim Sells Mobiles to Masses,” Bloomberg, com, November 12, 2013, Clinton Foundation, 
“Contributor Information,” https// 


6. Lenzner, Terry F., “A Second Presidential Scandal,” in The Investigator: Fifty Years of Uncovering the Truth (New York: 
Penguin Group, 2013), 290-314. 

7. US Senate, Governmental Affairs Committee, Majority Report: Executive Summary, March 5, 1998, ries/execsumm030698.htm. 

8. Ibid. 

9. Ibid. 

10. Fournier, Ron, “White House Database: Hotel Link to Lincoln Bedroom,” Lubbock Avalanche-Journal , January 1, 1997, htm. 

11. Clinton, Hillary, “Remarks at the Transparency International-USA’s Annual Integrity Award Dinner,” speech, Transparency 
International Integrity Award Dinner, May-flower Hotel, Washington DC, March 22, 2012, http ://m. state . gov/nid 1 86703 . htm. Geman, 
Ben, “Clinton: SEC Oil, Mining Regs Will Have ‘Profound’ Effect,” The Hill, March 23, 2012, 
environment/217885-clinton-says-sec-oh-transparency-regs-wih-have -profound-effect. 

12. Gerth, Jeff, “Top Arkansas Lawyer Helped Hillary Clinton Turn Big Profit,” New York Tunes , March 17, 1994, 

About the Author 

PETER SCHWEIZER is the author of Extortion, Throw Them All Out, Architects of Ruin, and 
other books that have revealed political wrongdoing and led to congressional resignations and new 
ethics laws. He is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and the founder and director of the 
Government Accountability Institute, a team of investigative researchers and journalists committed to 
investigating and exposing crony capitalism, misuse of taxpayer monies, and other governmental 
corruption or malfeasance. 

Discover great authors, exclusive offers, and more at 

Also by Peter Schwfjzf.r 

Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets 
Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land 
Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison 
Architects of Ruin : How Big Government Liberals Wrecked the Global Economy — and How They 
Will Do It Again If No One Stops Them 
Landmark Speeches of the Conservative Movement (with Wynton Hall) 

The Reagan Presidency: Assessing the Man and His Legacy (with Paul Kengor) 

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy 
The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty (with Rochelle Schweizer) 

Reagan ’s War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph over Communism 
Disney: The Mouse Betrayed (with Rochelle Schweizer) 

Victory: The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet 




clinton cash. Copyright © 2015 by Peter Schweizer. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By 
payment of the required fees, you have been granted the nonexclusive, nontransferable right to access and read the text of this e-book 
on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse-engineered, or stored in or introduced 
into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or 
hereafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins e-books. 


ISBN: 978-0-06-236928-4 

EPub Edition May 2015 ISBN 9780062369307 
15 16 17 18 19 ov/rrd 10 987654321 

About thf. Pttrmshfr 


HarperCollins Publishers Australia Pty. Ltd. 
Level 13, 201 Elizabeth Street 
Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia 


HarperCollins Canada 
2 Bloor Street East - 20th Floor 
Toronto, ONM4W 1A8, Canada 

New Zealand 

HarperCollins Publishers New Zealand 
Unit Dl, 63 Apollo Drive 

Rosedale 0632 
Auckland, New Zealand 

United Kingdom 

HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. 

1 London Bridge Street 
London SE1 9GF, UK 

United States 

HarperCollins Publishers Inc. 

195 Broadway 
New York, NY 10007